On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 08:49:29PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> OK, we have a plan now.
Cool.
> We have introduced a LyXKeySym class
Ah, lkey, except it's untypable ... only kidding :)
> The point is that the LyX core only needs this functionality from the
> KeySym:
>
> - Stor
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, John Levon wrote:
> Anyway, I don't understand how the old code worked very well either.
> Feel lucky that I cleaned it up a while ago :))
>
> If there is some obscure bit of kb*.[hC] ... I /might/ know the answer;
> there's no harm in asking !
OK, we have a plan now.
We ha
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:43:51PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> We have had a beer or two now, and still no reply.
>
> It seems the British are only fast with the feet, not
> their minds.
Give us a chance I only went to the shop !
> We'll have another beer to celebrate this litt
Hi again,
We have had a beer or two now, and still no reply.
It seems the British are only fast with the feet, not
their minds.
We'll have another beer to celebrate this little victory.
Cheers,
Asger!
Dear John,
We practically committed the Screen patch you sent the 12th.
We did the merge ourselves, and changed a few names here and there,
but basically, it's the same patch.
However, as mentioned, we are not ready to merge the next bits, because
they break the kbmap stuff. We will spend some t
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:34:15PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> I am not sure I am in complete agreement with this one...
>
| I think there needs to be some refactoring done here anyway. Many
| of the accessors never made much sense to me. But I
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:21:03PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> of course, if you used namespace front, then you could even rename it as
> Screen...
, true...
john
--
"This is playing, not work, therefore it's not a waste of time."
- Zath
On Thursday 23 May 2002 11:06 am, John Levon wrote:
> http://movementarian.org/q8.diff.bz2
>
> I've written a short summary below of what the patch has done so far.
> I'm not sure what I should merge next - there are still some "move this"
> things to be done, but they get more tricky ...
>
> 2. s
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:34:15PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I am not sure I am in complete agreement with this one...
I think there needs to be some refactoring done here anyway. Many
of the accessors never made much sense to me. But I feel really queasy
about a setWindowTitle() metho
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | 19,000 lines of diff ... yipes
>>
>> Are you able to break this one up?
>
| Heh, I'm not being very clear today am I. The URL is just for reference,
| not a patch submission.
>
>>
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:26:47PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Does it work, John?
Not really. And it will be split.
Angus is dead right that it must be done in small logical changes,
compiling all the time. It will triple the work load but it is the only
honest way.
If Al Viro can rewrite t
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | 19,000 lines of diff ... yipes
>
> Are you able to break this one up?
Heh, I'm not being very clear today am I. The URL is just for reference,
not a patch submission.
> It is a tiny bit larger than what I am confortable w
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Are you able to break this one up?
>
> It is a tiny bit larger than what I am confortable with.
>
> breaking into say ... 17 patches would be good.
If it works you don't win by splitting...
Does it work, John?
Andre'
--
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Against current CVS (modulo removed file clashes I still haven't
| fixed) :
>
| http://movementarian.org/q8.diff.bz2
>
| 19,000 lines of diff ... yipes
Are you able to break this one up?
It is a tiny bit larger than what I am confortable with.
breaking
Against current CVS (modulo removed file clashes I still haven't
fixed) :
http://movementarian.org/q8.diff.bz2
19,000 lines of diff ... yipes
I've written a short summary below of what the patch has done so far.
I'm not sure what I should merge next - there are still some "move this"
things to
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Call it Screen or call it LyXScreen but not LScreen.
Screen is an X type, I think.
JMarc
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 15-Mar-2002 John Levon wrote:
>
>>> Why? PainterBase should not depend on frontends (therefore the name) and
>>> should not be in the frontends directory.
>>
>> By the same logic, these files :
| [snip]
>> don't belong in frontends/ either, since t
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why LScreen instead of LyXScreen? Just because it's shorter?
>
| yes. Don't your fingers hurt typing that ?
Why not just make it Screen then? (oh, that clash with an X name?)
--
Lgb
On 15-Mar-2002 John Levon wrote:
>> Why? PainterBase should not depend on frontends (therefore the name) and
>> should not be in the frontends directory.
>
> By the same logic, these files :
[snip]
> don't belong in frontends/ either, since they don't depend on a specific
> frontend.
I think
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 05:49:02PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Don't do that. I, for one, am interested. I'd be v. happy if you shoved this
> in a branch too. It's pretty easy to keep synched with head so long as you do
> it regularly.
Well there is the small problem of Lars ...
besides the
On Friday 15 March 2002 5:37 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > So sit on this patch until 1.3 and we will have a look then.
> well I don't know about sitting on it but I will shut up about it ...
Don't do that. I, for one, am interested. I'd be v. happy if you shoved this
in a branch too. It's pretty e
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 10:12:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | WorkArea became a virtual abstract class, and XWorkArea derives from it.
> | No real meaningful changes except that LyXScreen (now LScreen) became
> | owned by WorkArea. This is logical and correct IMHO.
>
> Why does it hav
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 09:29:21AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> > PainterBase renamed Painter to fit with source usage. Painter
> > renamed as XPainter. Both moved into frontends, some cleanup (e.g.
> > pixmap() now in XPainter only)
>
> Why? PainterBase should not depend on frontends (therefor
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| PainterBase renamed Painter to fit with source usage. Painter
| renamed as XPainter. Both moved into frontends, some cleanup (e.g.
| pixmap() now in XPainter only)
This sounds wrong.
| LyXView/XFormsView moved, some minor cleanups. Currently createWorkAr
On 15-Mar-2002 John Levon wrote:
> PainterBase renamed Painter to fit with source usage. Painter
> renamed as XPainter. Both moved into frontends, some cleanup (e.g.
> pixmap() now in XPainter only)
Why? PainterBase should not depend on frontends (therefore the name) and
should not be in the fr
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/q2.diff.bz2
Mostly cleanups over the other one.
Some short description of what's been done so far
I think this is a really good opportunity to kill some old cruft
and update stuff to the new way of doing things (boost usage etc.).
PainterBase renamed Painter to
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 05:07:15PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have said this before, and I am sure you have seen it, but you have
> probaly not understood the implications:
>
> We are using xforms wrong.
>
> We are not calling xforms functions as a result some events all the
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 02:44:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> > I'm not sure of the point of this - are you planning on writing a pure
>> > Xlib frontend ?
>>
>> Not me. But that't not the point. xforms in xforms, qt2 in qt2 and X11 in
>> X11. It c
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 02:44:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > I'm not sure of the point of this - are you planning on writing a pure
> > Xlib frontend ?
>
> Not me. But that't not the point. xforms in xforms, qt2 in qt2 and X11 in
> X11. It costs us nothing and leads to improved clarity.
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 2:37 pm, John Levon wrote:
> I'm not sure of the point of this - are you planning on writing a pure
> Xlib frontend ?
Not me. But that't not the point. xforms in xforms, qt2 in qt2 and X11 in
X11. It costs us nothing and leads to improved clarity.
> > 1.3 is going to
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:34:49PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> One tiny thing on the #include front: you don't need WorkArea.h in
> BufferView_pimpl.h anymore.
indeed !
> As Asger says, it's hard to see what is changed and what is just moved into
> frontends. Am I right in saying that you'v
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 12:55 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:38:17AM +, John Levon wrote:
>
> > http://www.movement.uklinux.net/q1.diff.gz
>
> q1.diff.bz2
Thank you.
One tiny thing on the #include front: you don't need WorkArea.h in
BufferView_pimpl.h anymore.
As A
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:38:17AM +, John Levon wrote:
> http://www.movement.uklinux.net/q1.diff.gz
q1.diff.bz2
john
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 12:38 am, John Levon wrote:
> Here :
>
> http://www.movement.uklinux.net/q1.diff.gz
File not found
A
Here :
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/q1.diff.gz
is a rather large patch that is another step towards GUII.
I mention it now mainly because I would like Lars et al to quickly
scan it and say if the approach is heading towards the right
one.
The aim right now is to create a bare minimum for Q
35 matches
Mail list logo
