On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:03:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > Or we can just provide a simple interface from lyxrc that uses Qt if the > frontend has something. This is just not difficult to do. > > > > Furthermore, they encourage commingling of frontend code with logic > > > code, which is just a bad idea. > > > > Well, Qt 4.0 uses MVC as well. > > Um, we're not ready to use Qt 4, and even if we were, and knowing Qt as > well as I do, I expect its attempt at MVC is still going to be "our way > or the highway".
They seemingly learned a lesson or two. Qt 4 is conceptionally much cleaner than Qt 3 and older. > > > Do you really think the GUI logic was clearer when xforms lived in > > > src/ instead of src/frontends/qt2/ ? > > > > No. And I am not proposing to merge them again. BUt I am against e.g. > > having MenuBackend.C & Co. > > What, because of the huge maintenance burden? You seem to be the only > one here who thinks this stuff is a problem, and I honestly don't > understand why. Especially since, AFAIK, most of the work you've done > has been on mathed and the LyX core, and not much on GUII or the > frontends. Indeed. I havne't done any. Mainly because I found it all the time too difficult to come up with a new dialog quickly. > Surely you agree that the hard, time consuming stuff is in the core, and > it always has been? Not too sure. Guess why mathed has several dozen insets but only one major dialog which has been there all the time. Certainly not because these insets don't need a dialog but rather because a new simple inset is hacked together in ten minutes, but a new dialog (the LyX way) is not. > As Angus (I think) pointed out the only major 1.5 feature I can think of > that would need a non-trivial amount of GUII work would be the char > styles proposal I outlined some time ago. Decent macro support is somewhat challenging GUI-wise as well. Same is true for search&replace including structures. > > "People" expect them. I am not font of it either. If we use Qt, we just > > get them for free and nobody is hurt. > > I already said we already *have* them, and I explicitly turn them off. > Your example is irrelevant. Maybe. A few are still standing. Andre'
