John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>
>> How much money do you need?
>
| Heh, thanks, but I've plans now anyway !
... bad planning ...
--
Lgb
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> How much money do you need?
Heh, thanks, but I've plans now anyway !
Now you make me feel guilty in terms of next year ...
john
--
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."
- Hecto
On Thu, 23 May 2002, John Levon wrote:
> > So, fellow devvies: What is your (stupid) reason to not attend?
>
> Really, money ! Record shops are evil ...
How much money do you need?
Maybe we can chip together...
Greets,
Asger
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> So, fellow devvies: What is your (stupid) reason to not attend?
Really, money ! Record shops are evil ...
Maybe next year unless it's antipodean :)
john
--
"I never understood what's so hard about picking a unique
first
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:36:16PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:20:24PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> >> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> | My 0.02 EUR:
> >>
> >> Is this a featu
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:20:24PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
>> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | My 0.02 EUR:
>>
>> Is this a feature request or stuff you are going to work on?
>>
>> --
>> Lgb
|
| User-definable
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:20:24PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | My 0.02 EUR:
>
> Is this a feature request or stuff you are going to work on?
>
> --
> Lgb
User-definable floats is a feature request. Herbert has it IIRC.
Optional
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| My 0.02 EUR:
Is this a feature request or stuff you are going to work on?
--
Lgb
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
>> Why don't you come to the Meeting to Porto?
>
| Oh, money blah blah blah
You only have to pay for the trip you know... food, drinks and shelter
are provided for. (And this goes for all ot
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Friday 17 May 2002 9:18 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:56:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> >> In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time",
>> |
>>
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Why don't you come to the Meeting to Porto?
Oh, money blah blah blah
> What are you thinking we plan to do there?
Drink ?
> I for myself plan exactly to work on GUII and make the WorkArea
> GUII and we have enough manpower there
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:20 pm, John Levon wrote:
>> So, Lars, can we have a branch ??
>
>
| Hes' on holiday I believe. Why don't you see if you can create one and commit
| to it...
But...
I plan to write a small doc "Howto use branches", I did one
On Friday 17 May 2002 9:18 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:56:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >> In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time",
> |
> | Isn't this what happened with the abandoned dev
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:56:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>> In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time",
>
| Isn't this what happened with the abandoned development tree ?
>
| I would much prefer trying to draw up a list
On Friday 17 May 2002 6:18 am, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:20 am, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Allan. (ARRae)
> >
> > Why don't you read the bloody code before talking a pile of crap?
>
> Not all the pile was crap but after readi
On 16-May-2002 John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:14:05PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> But will mean that you can take people along with you. Dumping a huge change
>> on us will mean that you're the only one who knows what's going on at all.
>
> Perhaps. But bear in mind that in
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:47:10PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Already this is likely to clash with GUII :(
> How seriously I don't know.
>
> > - better .tex -> .lyx coversion
>
> Luckily independent (you mean python-relyx yes ?)
I don't mean anything special regarding languages etc. I just
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:43:00PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:19:34PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > I would much prefer trying to draw up a list of planned major and even
> > minor changes, and trying to keep to it.
>
> Ok... a few things on my agenda:
>
> global
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:20 am, Allan Rae wrote:
[...]
> > Allan. (ARRae)
>
> Why don't you read the bloody code before talking a pile of crap?
Not all the pile was crap but after reading the code I now see that
some of it might have been.
> There ar
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Isn't that what branches are for? Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play
> > there. Ditto André/Jürgen could set up a RewriteCursorCodeToUseMetrics
> > branch. It isn't too hard to m
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:47:10PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:43:00PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > - better .tex -> .lyx coversion
>
> Luckily independent (you mean python-relyx yes ?)
Yes. That's mine.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan A. Sylvan
On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:20 pm, John Levon wrote:
> So, Lars, can we have a branch ??
Hes' on holiday I believe. Why don't you see if you can create one and commit
to it...
Angus
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:14:05PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> But will mean that you can take people along with you. Dumping a huge change
> on us will mean that you're the only one who knows what's going on at all.
Perhaps. But bear in mind that in fact the changes are conceptually very
ver
On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:01 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:00:38PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > But how can we tell it works without compiling and testing ?
> >
> > Well that's it. I'd like to get each logical change up and running
> > properly.
>
> This will certainly be
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:00:38PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > But how can we tell it works without compiling and testing ?
>
> Well that's it. I'd like to get each logical change up and running properly.
This will certainly be slow, although I doubt it will be sure.
I suppose this is the
On Thursday 16 May 2002 5:43 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:28:10PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > That's what I meant. One logical change at a time, then does it work with
> > xforms and with Qt? Great, let's make the next logical change.
>
> But how can we tell it works with
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:43:00PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> - context sensitive keybindings
Already this is likely to clash with GUII :(
How seriously I don't know.
> - better .tex -> .lyx coversion
Luckily independent (you mean python-relyx yes ?)
> - the "cursor stuff"
MA
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:28:10PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> That's what I meant. One logical change at a time, then does it work with
> xforms and with Qt? Great, let's make the next logical change.
But how can we tell it works without compiling and testing ?
Anyway, Qt is NOT important r
On Thursday 16 May 2002 5:23 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:29:19PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > We should gradually filter your own personal tree into the branch.
>
> Would that it were so easy, unless you are prepared to take merges that
> leave an uncompilable lyx. The na
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:29:19PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> We should gradually filter your own personal tree into the branch.
Would that it were so easy, unless you are prepared to take merges that
leave an uncompilable lyx. The nature of the beast makes it near
impossible to split things
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:19:34PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> I would much prefer trying to draw up a list of planned major and even
> minor changes, and trying to keep to it.
Ok... a few things on my agenda:
global
- context sensitive keybindings
- better .tex -> .lyx coversion
-
On Thursday 16 May 2002 4:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Isn't that what branches are for?
>
> To a degree. But big changes like GUII and not going to play well with
> other big changes.
>
> > Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:56:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time",
Isn't this what happened with the abandoned development tree ?
I would much prefer trying to draw up a list of planned major and even
minor changes, and tryin
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Isn't that what branches are for?
To a degree. But big changes like GUII and not going to play well with
other big changes.
> Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play there.
Yes please, at least temporarily. I need some help un
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Isn't that what branches are for? Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play
> there. Ditto André/Jürgen could set up a RewriteCursorCodeToUseMetrics
> branch. It isn't too hard to maintain a branch against changes in head if the
On Thursday 16 May 2002 3:21 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:20:08PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > (partly to keep the cycle shorter, partly to work out what hierarchy
>
> I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one worried about 1.3. With the
> current stuff slated for it, it won't be
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:20:08PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> (partly to keep the cycle shorter, partly to work out what hierarchy
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one worried about 1.3. With the
current stuff slated for it, it won't be out until 2004 :(
regards
john
--
"It is very difficult
On Thursday 16 May 2002 6:20 am, Allan Rae wrote:
> > I'd like to see what you come up with instead in QPreferences though...
>
> I don't believe it! You are proposing to work around the abuse of
> input() by adding an extra way of handling inputs (what you
> euphamistically call "Suspects") whil
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 7:28 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > > > This is heading dangerously close to re-implementing a widget toolkit
> > > > and I'm not sure I like the idea.
> > >
> > > Bollocks. It's just OO-code. Nothing more.
> >
> > As long as it stay
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:39:07PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> bc().addSuspect(&widgets().someSuspectWidget);
OK so it is just like the readOnly widget list in terms of
implementation. Sounds fine to me.
> I'd like to see what you come up with instead in QPreferences though...
First th
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 7:28 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > > This is heading dangerously close to re-implementing a widget toolkit
> > > and I'm not sure I like the idea.
> >
> > Bollocks. It's just OO-code. Nothing more.
>
> As long as it stays optional I suppose it's OK. But, for example,
> assumin
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:24:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Fair enough. I understand that Qt Designer can handle such widgets in Qt3
> though...
Mmm, only to a degree though.
> > This is heading dangerously close to re-implementing a widget toolkit
> > and I'm not sure I like the idea.
>
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 7:16 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:27:00PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > BoundingBox etc out of the simple ones and that I can set() and get()
> > them very elegantly. They should be able to do exactly the same; leads to
> > very clean code.
>
> But
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:27:00PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> BoundingBox etc out of the simple ones and that I can set() and get() them
> very elegantly. They should be able to do exactly the same; leads to very
> clean code.
But it also has disadvantages. Custom widgets are often less fle
I have been happily making progress with my wrappers for xforms. In fact, I'm
very pleasantly surprised by how clean and easy to understand the resulting
code is. Unscrambling the spagetti that was FormGraphics has been very
satisfying.
I have put my work to-date on the web at
http://www.deve
45 matches
Mail list logo
