On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next release of
the Developer Tools.
At least 1.2.3 works!
I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
Does that help?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a first
step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do
these names sound reasonable or does anybody have a better idea?
Sounds reasonable.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Pedro Tejedor wrote:
Dear developers,
I downloaded and compiled recently lyx 1.3. It produces an error when I
- choose interline space to be one and a half
- use dvips option
- use a table with a figure in one cell, and a rotated text in the other
- try to compile
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a
first step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and
LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do these names sound reasonable or does anybody
have a better
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
release of the Developer Tools.
At least 1.2.3 works!
I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
Does that help?
Apparently
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
|
| On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
| Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
| release of the Developer Tools.
|
| At least 1.2.3 works!
|
| I just renamed that
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:14:49PM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
While it is possible to change the selection in insert-reference with
the up/down keys, this cannot be done until the mouse is moved into the
scroll-window (is that the right term?). This is odd and frustrating.
If the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
Good point. But looks ok.
(I have a patch to remove all of those...)
As script?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have,
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
|
| Good point. But looks ok.
|
| (I have a patch to remove all of those...)
|
| As script?
No... I had a script when I created
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
The question is if we want to do it or not?
(I think yes.)
I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
first.
Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
test...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
test...
I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| The question is if we want to do it or not?
| (I think yes.)
|
| I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
| first.
That is very dependant on the
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
| Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
| test...
|
| I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
You are using gcc 2.95, right?
--
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:06:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
You are using gcc 2.95, right?
Yes.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
That is very dependant on the compiler used.
(version of gcc)
As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
(less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| That is very dependant on the compiler used.
| (version of gcc)
|
| As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
| (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Speed is
In the last few days, the Sourceforge statistics for preview-latex
exhibited quite large page views, particularly considering that we are
in a time of relative quietness (ok, the last release managed over a
1000 hits, about double the current interest, but still...).
It's pretty obvious where
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
| (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Speed is not the issue, binary size is.
run size on the one with and without pragma.
Without #pragma
textdata
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| gcc 2.95 Without #pragma
|textdata bss dec hex filename
| 5856658 1828572 53284 7738514 761492 src/lyx
| -rwxr-xr-x1 poenitz users141053566 Feb 13 13:33 src/lyx
|
| gcc 2.95 With #pragma
|textdata bss dec
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 03:09:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
It seems that the benefits that were present with gcc 2.7.x are just
not present anymore, so I think we should just get rid of the pragma.
I have a patch ready, should I commit it?
I think so.
btw... If I were a
Helge == Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[I add lyx-devel in cc because I'd like some discussion]
Helge I have tested your patch with the following document structure:
Helge A main document (dtest.lyx) includes dtest2.lyx from the same
Helge directory, and d1/d1.lyx and d2/d2.lyx
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars btw... If I were a harddisk... I would prefere gcc 3.2...
And then you will feel bored all day, waiting for someone to write on
your lonely sectors...
JMarc
According to the current README I've removed XForms 0.89.6
and tried to use XForms 1.0 and/or Qt!
A new Cygwin release with a new gcc 3.2 compiler. The new xforms 1.0 as well
as the new choice to use the Qt frontend and the new lyx 1.3.0 sources: Too
much changes in a too short time 8((
I get lots of
deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
deleting pit 0x8f20de0
deleting pit 0xa7edbd8
deleting pit 0xa174470
deleting pit 0x8afe050
deleting pit 0x8ba2760
deleting pit 0x8ba27c8
lately.
Is that intentional behaviour?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:22:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
lately.
Is that intentional behaviour?
ooops, looks like some of my debug stuff got in too.
fixed
john
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
I guess no one is interested in such small improvement right now. I will
just patch my own tree and wait.
--
Bo Peng
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:46:54AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
I guess no one is interested in such small improvement
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
Seems to work though. I just applied some modification of this patch.
Aerm. Could you please verify it works and close the bug?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
has the right to do that?
JMarc
Claus Hentschel wrote:
Hello, Claus. You've been busy!
Embedded eps-images cannot be viewed inside Lyx with Qt-3. Anything
went wrong trying to convert them from eps to xpm! (Using the
Xforms-Lyx eps images will be converted into ppm format w/o any
error)
Cluas, I would suggest removing any
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
has the right to do that?
At the same time, the person could perhaps add a small footer saying
who's responsible for the content? (for Lyx 1.3.1...) :)
/C
--
Christian
Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
john
Hi,
We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src -I./../ -I../../boost -isystem
This problem was reported earlier and I've confirmed it.
I don't know if it's a lyx-bug or a latex-bug, here's the rundown:
This file works: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/works.lyx
This file fails: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/fails.lyx
With the error that
Dear developers,
if you use a math-macro in 1.1.6 it appears sometimes without its
brackets in 1.3.0, which surprisingly works sometimes. I have isolated a
case where it doesn't work, with a calligraphic font. Attached is a
minimum 1.1.6 file. It doesn't happen with lyx 1.2.3
all the best,
Hi.. based on suggestions from this list, I upgraded to gcc3.2 and
recompiled QT 3 and then compiled lyx 1.3.0. I still can't startup
Lyx.. gives the following error:
src/lyx: relocation error: src/lyx: undefined symbol: _ZN5QChar4nullE
I'm using gcc/g++ 3.2.1 with Qt 3.0.7 on a Debian powerpc
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:11:14AM +1100, Amir Michail wrote:
We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
Just confirmed - it happens with clean
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
|
| Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
| or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
| looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like
I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
menu.
john
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:46:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
|
| Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
| or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart
I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
menu.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer the insert key to behave as
expected.
of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right below
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:10:31PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
menu.
of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right below X. So I
To do what ? It has no purpose in LyX
john
It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Cheers
Koz.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The patch does not apply cleanly to current CVS
The patch was made several weeks ago for 1.3CVS. I should have made
another one
and it does not really follow LyX coding rules.
I have read the 'coding rules' and I would
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:36PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Maybe you're right.
john
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:10:31PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
|
| I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
| menu.
|
| of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
|
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:35:27AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
| To do what ? It has no purpose in LyX
Would be more logical to use it to toggle over-write-mode
I certainly don't want to implement this. I've always thought it was a
stupid idea ever since graphical displays became
We do not have an over-write-mode :-)
--
Lgb
That explains it. How many people would actually want such a thing. I can't
think of the last time I used it deliberatly. As John said, that functionality
is a holdover from years ago.
Cheers
Koz.
Title: Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø
×𾴵ĸºÔðÈË:
ÐÂÄêºÃ!
Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø www.vxyv.com
³ÏÕ÷ÓÑÇéÁ´½Ó Ãâ·ÑΪÄú·¢²¼¸÷ÀàÐÅÏ¢,µç×ÓÉÌÎñÈí¼þ³ÏÕ÷´úÀíÉÌ.
QQÔÚÏß×Éѯ:21677192 5189773 LQ:55028 55027 PP:12721676 4234627
Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:15:37PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
+2003-01-27 Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ * insetinclude.C (loadIfNeeded): included files might be under
+ VCS control so we need loadLyXFile() not readFile() for that.
+
Are you still planning to apply this at some
Hello,
I haven't been on the list for a long time, so sorry if the same
question has been already asked. (I couldn't find anything on
bugzilla).
A few years ago I've made kmap file for serbocroatian.
Last time I used it in 1.1.6fix4 it worked fine.
Today I have installed 1.3.0 (and then just to
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:15:37PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
+2003-01-27 Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ * insetinclude.C (loadIfNeeded): included files might be under
+ VCS control so we need loadLyXFile() not readFile() for that.
+
Are
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Allan Rae wrote:
Yes, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Will update again and
commit today.
Haven't had time after all. Feel free to make the one line change
yourself.
Allan. (ARRae)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next release of
> the Developer Tools.
>
> At least 1.2.3 works!
I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
Does that help?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a first
> step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do
> these names sound reasonable or does anybody have a better idea?
Sounds
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Pedro Tejedor wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I downloaded and compiled recently lyx 1.3. It produces an error when I
>
> - choose interline space to be one and a half
> - use dvips option
> - use a table with a figure in one cell, and a rotated text in the other
> - try to
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a
>> first step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and
>> LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do these names sound reasonable or does anybody
>> have a
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
>> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
>> release of the Developer Tools.
>>
>> At least 1.2.3 works!
>
> I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
> Does that help?
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
|
| > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
| >> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
| >> release of the Developer Tools.
| >>
| >> At least 1.2.3 works!
| >
| > I just renamed
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:14:49PM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> While it is possible to change the selection in insert-reference with
> the up/down keys, this cannot be done until the mouse is moved into the
> scroll-window (is that the right term?). This is odd and frustrating.
>
> If
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
Good point. But looks ok.
> (I have a patch to remove all of those...)
As script?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have,
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
|
| Good point. But looks ok.
|
| > (I have a patch to remove all of those...)
|
| As script?
No... I had a script when I
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> The question is if we want to do it or not?
> (I think yes.)
I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
first.
Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
test...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
> test...
I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > The question is if we want to do it or not?
| > (I think yes.)
|
| I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
| first.
That is very dependant on the
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
| > Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
| > test...
|
| I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
You are using gcc 2.95, right?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:06:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
>
> You are using gcc 2.95, right?
Yes.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That is very dependant on the compiler used.
> (version of gcc)
As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
(less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > That is very dependant on the compiler used.
| > (version of gcc)
|
| As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
| (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Speed
In the last few days, the Sourceforge statistics for preview-latex
exhibited quite large page views, particularly considering that we are
in a time of relative quietness (ok, the last release managed over a
1000 hits, about double the current interest, but still...).
It's pretty obvious where
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
> | (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
>
> Speed is not the issue, binary size is.
>
> run size on the one with and without pragma.
Without #pragma
text
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| gcc 2.95 Without #pragma
|textdata bss dec hex filename
| 5856658 1828572 53284 7738514 761492 src/lyx
| -rwxr-xr-x1 poenitz users141053566 Feb 13 13:33 src/lyx
|
| gcc 2.95 With #pragma
|textdata bss dec
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 03:09:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> It seems that the benefits that were present with gcc 2.7.x are just
> not present anymore, so I think we should just get rid of the pragma.
>
> I have a patch ready, should I commit it?
I think so.
> btw... If I were a
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[I add lyx-devel in cc because I'd like some discussion]
Helge> I have tested your patch with the following document structure:
Helge> A main document (dtest.lyx) includes dtest2.lyx from the same
Helge> directory, and d1/d1.lyx and
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> btw... If I were a harddisk... I would prefere gcc 3.2...
And then you will feel bored all day, waiting for someone to write on
your lonely sectors...
JMarc
According to the current README I've removed XForms 0.89.6
and tried to use XForms 1.0 and/or Qt!
A new Cygwin release with a new gcc 3.2 compiler. The new xforms 1.0 as well
as the new choice to use the Qt frontend and the new lyx 1.3.0 sources: Too
much changes in a too short time 8((
I get lots of
deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
deleting pit 0x8f20de0
deleting pit 0xa7edbd8
deleting pit 0xa174470
deleting pit 0x8afe050
deleting pit 0x8ba2760
deleting pit 0x8ba27c8
lately.
Is that intentional behaviour?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:22:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
>
> lately.
>
> Is that intentional behaviour?
ooops, looks like some of my debug stuff got in too.
fixed
john
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
> patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
I guess no one is interested in such small improvement right now. I will
just patch my own tree and wait.
--
Bo
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:46:54AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> > If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
> > patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
>
> I guess no one is interested in such small
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> Seems to work though. I just applied some modification of this patch.
Aerm. Could you please verify it works and close the bug?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
has the right to do that?
JMarc
Claus Hentschel wrote:
Hello, Claus. You've been busy!
> Embedded eps-images cannot be viewed inside Lyx with Qt-3. Anything
> went wrong trying to convert them from eps to xpm! (Using the
> Xforms-Lyx eps images will be converted into ppm format w/o any
> error)
Cluas, I would suggest removing
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
> has the right to do that?
At the same time, the person could perhaps add a small footer saying
who's responsible for the content? (for Lyx 1.3.1...) :)
/C
--
Christian
Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
john
Hi,
We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src -I./../ -I../../boost -isystem
This problem was reported earlier and I've "confirmed" it.
I don't know if it's a lyx-bug or a latex-bug, here's the rundown:
This file works: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/works.lyx
This file fails: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/fails.lyx
With the error
Dear developers,
if you use a math-macro in 1.1.6 it appears sometimes without its
brackets in 1.3.0, which surprisingly works sometimes. I have isolated a
case where it doesn't work, with a calligraphic font. Attached is a
minimum 1.1.6 file. It doesn't happen with lyx 1.2.3
all the best,
Hi.. based on suggestions from this list, I upgraded to gcc3.2 and
recompiled QT 3 and then compiled lyx 1.3.0. I still can't startup
Lyx.. gives the following error:
src/lyx: relocation error: src/lyx: undefined symbol: _ZN5QChar4nullE
I'm using gcc/g++ 3.2.1 with Qt 3.0.7 on a Debian powerpc
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:11:14AM +1100, Amir Michail wrote:
> We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
> that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
> This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
>
>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
> Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
> or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
> looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
Just confirmed - it happens with
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
|
| > Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
| > or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
| > looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but
I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
menu.
john
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:46:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
> |
> | > Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
> | > or is anyone else seeing that the closing
> I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
> menu.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer the insert key to behave as
expected.
of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:10:31PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
> > I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
> > menu.
>
> of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
> ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right below X.
> To do what ? It has no purpose in LyX
>
> john
It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Cheers
Koz.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The patch does not apply cleanly to current CVS
The patch was made several weeks ago for 1.3CVS. I should have made
another one
> and it does not really follow LyX coding rules.
I have read the 'coding rules' and I would
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:36PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
> It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
> default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Maybe you're right.
john
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
