David Seikel wrote:
but, I noticed purely by chance, that exebuf is laggy with blue eyed,
but not with gant..
from the time I hit a letter until it appears in exebuf and list is
filled, a couple seconds transpire.. with gant it's instantaneous..
Is this the exebuf lag problem that has alread
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:13:57 +0100 Morten Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> but, I noticed purely by chance, that exebuf is laggy with blue eyed,
> but not with gant..
>
> from the time I hit a letter until it appears in exebuf and list is
> filled, a couple seconds transpire.. with gant it's
normally, I use gant, but I like to look at the other themes once in a
while.. and one of the ones I think has potential, is blue eyed..
but, I noticed purely by chance, that exebuf is laggy with blue eyed,
but not with gant..
from the time I hit a letter until it appears in exebuf and list i
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:28:50 +0100 Gerald Dachs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't imagine a developer could checkin something that could
> break something knowingly.
API breakage is a fact of life in unreleased software like E17. Since
there is no release to remain compatible with, there is
> The last two lines of output are:
> ...:432:"undefined reference to `ewl_notebook_tabs_position_set'... and
> ...:433: undefined reference to `ewl_notebook_tabs_alignment_set'...
>
> This was just hours after an EWL commit that says:
>
> - rename notebook2 to notebook.
> - this is API breakage
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:00:22 + Andrew Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
>
> Now, I have an idea here:
>
> exebuf does not list _all_ apps _ever_ if you type nothing then the list
> is empty.
>
> would it be quicker to populate in the background only when something is
> typed (thus limiti
Now, I have an idea here:
exebuf does not list _all_ apps _ever_ if you type nothing then the list
is empty.
would it be quicker to populate in the background only when something is
typed (thus limiting the number of results returned)?
Not sure that this would be quicker, but thought I would th
