On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Ok, I see. So one solution is then to come up with a way to make the
> > minibuffer disappear automatically?
> >
> > There is one thing I wonder about though... are you bothered by the
> > minibuffer appearing out of mistake, i.e. do you sometime ac
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:28:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Bo Peng wrote:
>
> > > (Yes, I strongly think we should keep M-x as a shortcut. Removing it
> > > just because the fix for making M-x always work... well, that sucks.).
> > >
> >
> > M-x now works. The side
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:19:58AM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 05:48 schrieb Bo Peng:
> > I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
>
> If you mean the minibuffer: No. The minibuffer is nice for debugging and
> power users. I agree that no keyboard shortcut is ne
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > * M-x is broken (does not bring up the minibuffer).
> >> >
> >> > So what exactly do we want M-x to do?
> >>
> >> It should make the minibuffer visible and focus on i
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:22:05AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> >Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily. I
> >don't understand why it's difficult?
>
> Becasue this feature is rarely used by normal user so the minibuffer
> toolbar should not be shown by default. Then, M-x
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:54:29PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 15:24 schrieb John Levon:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:22:05AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> >
> > > >Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily.
> I
> > > >don't understand why it's
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:17:02AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> >Bo> I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
> >
> >I think we should not. Some people actually rely on this feature, and
> >we would not gain much by removing it.
>
> OK. I admit that I am not a power user, at least regarding this
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Bo Peng wrote:
> > (Yes, I strongly think we should keep M-x as a shortcut. Removing it
> > just because the fix for making M-x always work... well, that sucks.).
> >
>
> M-x now works. The side effect is that it turns on minibuffer toolbar,
> which has to be turned off manua
(Yes, I strongly think we should keep M-x as a shortcut. Removing it
just because the fix for making M-x always work... well, that sucks.).
M-x now works. The side effect is that it turns on minibuffer toolbar,
which has to be turned off manually.
Bo
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Bo Peng wrote:
> > > What prevents it from doing what it already did in 1.4?
> >
> > There has been some toolbar reorganization that is not yet finished. I have
> > no idea if this is a big problem or not.
>
> The problem is that M-x does not always work.
Shouldn't the fix b
> What prevents it from doing what it already did in 1.4?
There has been some toolbar reorganization that is not yet finished. I have
no idea if this is a big problem or not.
The problem is that M-x does not always work.
Bo
Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 15:24 schrieb John Levon:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:22:05AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
>
> > >Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily.
I
> > >don't understand why it's difficult?
Since I always have the minibuffer on the shortcut was not
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:22:05AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> >Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily. I
> >don't understand why it's difficult?
>
> Becasue this feature is rarely used by normal user so the minibuffer
> toolbar should not be shown by default. Then, M-x
Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily. I
don't understand why it's difficult?
Becasue this feature is rarely used by normal user so the minibuffer
toolbar should not be shown by default. Then, M-x will fail if it can
not find minibuffer. I propose that power users
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:19:58AM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> If you mean the minibuffer: No. The minibuffer is nice for debugging and
> power users. I agree that no keyboard shortcut is needed, though.
Hmm it's close to pointless without being able to switch to it easily. I
don't understand why
Bo> I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
I think we should not. Some people actually rely on this feature, and
we would not gain much by removing it.
OK. I admit that I am not a power user, at least regarding this
minibuffer feature. The problem now is that M-x is supposed to work
eve
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 10:48:36PM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> >Some power users find it quite useful, but I doubt most people would be
> >bothered.
>
> Then I do not see the point of wasting a shortcut for a rarely used
> feature.
Rarely?
Just because you don't need it does not automatically make i
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 09:48:05PM +1800, Bo Peng wrote:
> * Command completion in the minibuffer shows a huge blank area below
> the proposed
> commands. Clicking in that empty area crashes LyX.
>
> I am sorry but I have never figured out how minibuffer should be used.
Reading the docs should g
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 05:48 schrieb Bo Peng:
> > I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
>
> If you mean the minibuffer: No. The minibuffer is nice for debugging and
> power users. I agree that no keyboard shortcut is needed, though.
I lik
Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 11:19 schrieb Georg Baum:
> Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 05:48 schrieb Bo Peng:
> > I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
>
> If you mean the minibuffer: No. The minibuffer is nice for debugging and
> power users.
Yes please. Do not remove the minibuffer.
>
Am Samstag, 18. November 2006 05:48 schrieb Bo Peng:
> I tend to suggest that we remove this feature.
If you mean the minibuffer: No. The minibuffer is nice for debugging and
power users. I agree that no keyboard shortcut is needed, though.
Georg
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * M-x is broken (does not bring up the minibuffer).
>> >
>> > So what exactly do we want M-x to do?
>>
>> It should make the minibuffer visible and focus on it (but not turn
>> it on permanently).
Bo> You mean hide the toolbar as soon as the
> * M-x is broken (does not bring up the minibuffer).
>
> So what exactly do we want M-x to do?
It should make the minibuffer visible and focus on it (but not turn it
on permanently).
You mean hide the toolbar as soon as the user hit enter (and execute
the command)? This does not sound right.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 09:48:05PM +1800, Bo Peng wrote:
> * M-x is broken (does not bring up the minibuffer).
>
> So what exactly do we want M-x to do?
It should make the minibuffer visible and focus on it (but not turn it
on permanently).
> * Command completion in the minibuffer shows a huge
Quote from Status.15x:
TOOLBARS & MINIBUFFER
* When toolbars are hidden, they pop up again after clicking on the document
area (Joost 4/11/06).
I do not observe this. Is this windows only?
* M-x is broken (does not bring up the minibuffer).
So what exactly do we want M-x to do?
* Command co
25 matches
Mail list logo
