Re: The minibuffer

2003-03-04 Thread John Levon
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > Ok, so what happened to this during the last two weeks? No idea. I haven't the energy to track it down right now ... john

Re: The minibuffer

2003-03-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:27:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: | | > Someone has been playing with it. | > | > F.ex. when building dvi there are no messges about the latex run. | > | > Also after running a command the shortcut just stays there unti

Re: The minibuffer

2003-03-04 Thread John Levon
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:27:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > Someone has been playing with it. > > F.ex. when building dvi there are no messges about the latex run. > > Also after running a command the shortcut just stays there until some > cursor movement. Hmm yes. I think it's just

Re: The minibuffer

2003-03-04 Thread Kayvan A. Sylvan
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:27:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > Someone has been playing with it. > > F.ex. when building dvi there are no messges about the latex run. > > Also after running a command the shortcut just stays there until some > cursor movement. > > Can this be the Timeo

Re: the minibuffer

2002-07-05 Thread John Levon
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:52:51AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > this isn't directed at Lars; I think he's had to bear the brunt of the abuse > recently. To my eyes "STFU" helps no-one. OK OK ! john -- "If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owne

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Angus Leeming
On Monday 24 June 2002 3:02 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: > | Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | | It seems that the changes Juergen and I did to the minibuffer from > | | Porto has not been included? > | | We did rework a

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 03:11:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | It seems that the changes Juergen and I did to the minibuffer from > | Porto has not been included? > | We did rework all of these methods... > > Hmm... I did apply the complete diff... > I can check against what I have in t

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | It seems that the changes Juergen and I did to the minibuffer from | Porto has not been included? | We did rework all of these methods... Hmm... I did apply the complete diff... I can check against what I have in the Porto CVS repository.

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen
It seems that the changes Juergen and I did to the minibuffer from Porto has not been included? We did rework all of these methods... Greets, Asger

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Angus Leeming
On Monday 24 June 2002 10:37 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | I thought I'd try and move the minibuffer behind the frontends firewall > | and so had a look at which functions are used by the "general public". It > | transpires that only addSet and getS

Re: the minibuffer

2002-06-24 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I thought I'd try and move the minibuffer behind the frontends firewall and | so had a look at which functions are used by the "general public". It | transpires that only addSet and getString are used. > | I propose, therefore, getting rid entirely of