Edwin Leuven schrieb:
the behavior of the dialog hasn't changed. the overhang and linespan are
still optional. if they are not checked they are not passed on. i didn't
touch this part of the code.
if you think that changing a label (ie removing the "optional") changes
the behavior of the dialog, well then you're confused.
I can read the diff with the changes you made, so I know what you changed and not. What I meant was
that you kicked out the enabling state routines from the GuiWrap.cpp.
I can't currently compile my tree to test, but even when the state enabling is now done directly in
the UI-file, I wanted to have some info why you plan to chage thing. As you have seen, I was still
working on the wrapfig issue to fix the remaining issues, so you can imagine that it is a bad
surprise when somebody changed the button backend and you therefore get many unresolved SVN
conflicts with the modified files in your tree.
moreover, i changed the labels on purpose, we never write that
parameters are optional (they often are). this should be clear from the ui.
I don't think so, we had user requests about this when I remember. So why not directly stating that
an optional parameter is optional?
But anyway, I absolutely don't like that you changed the dialog
without asking before and/or reading why it looks currently like
this.
it is also clear that you didn't bother to try the dialog since you are
suggesting that the behavior changed
As I said, I couldn't compile my tree after I updated SVN. I'll try to get it
working later.
you're also suggesting that i am some renegade vandal who goes around
destroying other peoples work, whereas i am just cleaning up after you.
No, I just want to have things to be discussed before... I learned from your change in the end, but
not in the way it should go in my opinion.
With your "cleanup" you just reverted my complete work that
costs me some hours to get it in this state!
is bullshit.
I know, when you are angry, exaggerations are descriptive.
regards Uwe
