On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 04:43:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:52:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You don't need to be a power user to use source control, and depending
> on your circumstances, the user may not even need to see the SCS at all
True, but it wouldn
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:52:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Then get a source control system, and use it...
>
> Unfortunately, I've put LyX in the hands of some less-than-power users.
You don't need to be a power user to use source control, and depending
on your circumstances, the use
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:48:17PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Then get a source control system, and use it...
That's rich.
Unfortunately, I've put LyX in the hands of some less-than-power users.
> Why does using minipage instead of ERT directly provide *any* extra
> protection ? You've los
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:18:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem I'm thinking about is the unsophisticated deleting ERT inserts
> while working on text. Undo/Revert doesn't survive a document save.
Then get a source control system, and use it...
> > Why the minipage ? I don't ge
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
larry> At the moment, we use minipage to "protect" top-line,
larry> intermediate and ending text for complex documents.
larry> A straightforward example might be a letterhead with fixed
larry> topline, addressing and closing elements. Certain po
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:22:53AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> With templates we can have a .layout keyword. For documents in general,
> either the change tracking, or the standard Undo/Revert stuff will do
> IMO.
Not sure I get your point about .layout.
The problem I'm thinking about is the
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:01:03PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But I don't like the idea of representing it on the UI level for insets
> > in general - what is wrong with using Undo, Revert, etc. if you
> > accidentally delete something important ?
>
> As I mentioned in the quoted text, c
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:18:21AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Therefore an alternative proposal: what about introducing an inset --
> we could call it InsetProtected -- that protects everything inside it
> from deletion? A little easier to code on the document level. And the
>From a code poin
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:45:24AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> And there are two things here:
> - locking the contents of the instet from alteration
> - making the inset be indeletable.
>
> I have sympathy with the first one, I have problems with the second
> one.
>From th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > ERTs that is part of a paragraph _must_ be deleted if the paragraph as
| > a whole is deleted.
| >
| > ERTs that is a paragraph of its own might need to be locked.
|
| Well, I suppose one co
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> ERTs that is part of a paragraph _must_ be deleted if the paragraph as
> a whole is deleted.
>
> ERTs that is a paragraph of its own might need to be locked.
Well, I suppose one could disqualify deletion of a block of text
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| But at least it removes the canned text (along with ERT widgets) from view.
It seems to me that a feature like this only have meaning for some
ERTs.
ERTs that is part of a paragraph _must_ be deleted if the paragraph as
a whole is deleted.
ERTs that is a paragraph
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:18:21AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> Therefore an alternative proposal: what about introducing an inset --
> we could call it InsetProtected -- that protects everything inside it
> from deletion? A little easier to code on the document level. And the
> thing remains
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:06:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:40:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
> > items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
>
> But I don't
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:06:27PM +0100, John Levon spake thusly:
>
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:40:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
> > items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
>
> Ha
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:40:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
> items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
Having this as an option in the .layout files sound OK.
But I don't like the idea o
ERT can play an important role in creating templates, allowing for insertion of
raw LaTeX at key points throughout a document.
However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
In fact, I would find this v
17 matches
Mail list logo
