On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
> > Author: lasgouttes
> > Date: Mon Mar 30 15:49:52 2009
> > New Revision: 28980
> > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/28980
> >
>
> one trick is to take the last LFUN and push it on the place of the re
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Pavel Sanda writes:
> >> Very true. But it may lead to macros not being together anymore.
> >
> > what you call macros here?
>
> Sorry, lfuns. Some logically belong together.
you dont need to take exactly the last one etc.. :)
pavel
Pavel Sanda writes:
>> Very true. But it may lead to macros not being together anymore.
>
> what you call macros here?
Sorry, lfuns. Some logically belong together.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen, now that macro names are shown in debug, is the numbering still
> useful?
Macro names are certainly enough.
Jürgen
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > in also makes merging of indepent branches less painful, since the
> > change is more localized.
>
> Very true. But it may lead to macros not being together anymore.
what you call macros here?
> Juergen, now that macro names are shown in debug, is the numbering st
Pavel Sanda writes:
> one trick is to take the last LFUN and push it on the place of the removed
> LFUN.
Nice idea indeed.
> beside the fact that it saves your time
Emacs and regexps saved my time.
> in also makes merging of indepent branches less painful, since the
> change is more localize
lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: lasgouttes
> Date: Mon Mar 30 15:49:52 2009
> New Revision: 28980
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/28980
>
one trick is to take the last LFUN and push it on the place of the removed
LFUN. beside the fact that it saves your time in also makes merging of
Pavel Sanda writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> I committed because I did not get much feedback when posting the pach.
>
> sorry. one reason is that you didn't respond to the crucial question how this
> makes branch-handling more easy, secondly i'm still away from net. i have
> locally some (
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I committed because I did not get much feedback when posting the pach.
sorry. one reason is that you didn't respond to the crucial question how this
makes branch-handling more easy, secondly i'm still away from net. i have
locally some (new) additional fixes for branc
"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" writes:
> Well, I still want to adjust the context menu handling. Now, the cursor
> is automatically placed right in front of the inset, when right-clicking
> on the menu. Even, when you are inside the inset. In that case, I would
> like the cursor to remain at the p
>> And no "next-inset inset-toggle" construction after all ?
>
>I finally convinced myself it was easier. In particular, we know
>that we can invoke Inset::dispatch directly without running into
>an assertion.
>I like this solution, but if a better idea emerges, I can revert.
Well, I still wan
"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" writes:
> Would this mean the end of LFUN_NEXT_INSET_MODIFY too ?
Yes, but for this one I have to handle undo too. I wonder whether I
shall put that in the general handling or add a recordUndo call for each
individual INSET_MODIFY call.
> And no "next-inset inset-t
>Author: lasgouttes
>Date: Mon Mar 30 15:49:52 2009
>New Revision: 28980
>URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/28980
>
>Log:
>Kill next-inset-toggle and expand inset-toggle to provide
>the same functionality
Would this mean the end of LFUN_NEXT_INSET_MODIFY too ?
And no "next-inset inset-to
13 matches
Mail list logo
