On Friday 22 June 2007 06:55:01 Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Pretty trivial patch attached.
>
> Ok?
>
> Andre'
OK.
--
José Abílio
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> Pretty trivial patch attached.
>>>
>>> Ok?
>> can you add a comment?
>
> The feature (inserting a space via lfun) was asked for twice during the
> last few weeks. Now that is possible
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Pretty trivial patch attached.
> >
> >Ok?
>
> can you add a comment?
The feature (inserting a space via lfun) was asked for twice during the
last few weeks. Now that is possible using M-x unicode-insert 0x20.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Pretty trivial patch attached.
Ok?
can you add a comment?
Pretty trivial patch attached.
Ok?
Andre'
Index: Text3.cpp
===
--- Text3.cpp (revision 18813)
+++ Text3.cpp (working copy)
@@ -973,7 +973,7 @@
docstring hexstring = cmd.argument();
if (lyx::sup
I do not really like the idea of showing minibuffer with M-x but it
may be better than getting rid of M-x altogether, at least for power
users.
I have two patches: The first is needed anyway, and fixes the problem
so I applied it. The second patch removes M-x. It has no chance of
getting approve
On 11/18/06, John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See below. This makes the shown minibuffer as part of the session, but I
don't think that's problematic. There are still other problems:
Cannot you detect minubuffer toolbar state and call toggleToolbarState
if needed? You can avoid setToolbar
See below. This makes the shown minibuffer as part of the session, but I
don't think that's problematic. There are still other problems:
1) return on the completions popup doesn't select the item
2) focus gets lost (doesn't centralWidget()->focus() work with Qt4?)
OK?
john
Index: lyxfunc.C
==
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
tcut just stays there until some
| > cursor movement.
|
| Hmm yes. I think it's just that we never give the GUI a chance to
| redraw.
|
| BUT the minibuffer has never worked in a satisfactory. Now it's worse of
| course ...
|
| > Can this be the Timeout patch?
|
| Unlikely, but .
I think it's just that we never give the GUI a chance to
redraw.
BUT the minibuffer has never worked in a satisfactory. Now it's worse of
course ...
> Can this be the Timeout patch?
Unlikely, but ...
The only change I made was to consolidate the run message code, but
that was a mechanical transformation only
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
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 Timeout patch? Or something else?
--
Lgb
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
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?
&
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 agai
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 repo
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
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
>
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, therefo
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 LyXView::getMiniBuffer() and
re
some thoughts...
We really need to enance the minibuffer a bit. First of all it is very
wrong to have the minibuffer know about LyXfunc.
The LyXFunc should call the minibuffer not the other way around. Son a
sense the minibuffer should be a lot dumber that it is now.
What functions do we need
22 matches
Mail list logo
