Re: [patch] introduce namespace lyx::insets

Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:58:46AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | > This patch introduces namespace lyx::insets. both x

Re: xforms input field display bug (Re: [PATCH] Branch/Note, finally:-))

Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:37:59AM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote: > >>Yes, I do remember vague a problem like this, when I was reducing >>the height of all widgets from 30 to 20; 20 was too small, so it >>became 25. The latter seemed to work for all of us. > > > Aerm... did I m

Re: [patch] introduce namespace lyx::insets

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:58:46AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | > This patch introduces namespace lyx::insets. both xforms and qt are > | > handled. > | > | Couldn't we

Re: [patch] introduce namespace lyx::insets

Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:58:46AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > This patch introduces namespace lyx::insets. both xforms and qt are | > handled. | | Couldn't we settle for a flat 'lyx' namespace? I'd really, really rather not. Once we have al

Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?

John Levon wrote: > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it Me too. I'm with Edwin and John for the practical reasons Edwin already pointed out. It might sound egoistic, but a native win port would just make my life much easier. So if you change your mind and need my ok you'll cert

Re: [patch] introduce namespace lyx::insets

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:58:46AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > This patch introduces namespace lyx::insets. both xforms and qt are > handled. Couldn't we settle for a flat 'lyx' namespace? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do the

Re: xforms input field display bug (Re: [PATCH] Branch/Note, finally :-))

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:37:59AM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote: > Yes, I do remember vague a problem like this, when I was reducing > the height of all widgets from 30 to 20; 20 was too small, so it > became 25. The latter seemed to work for all of us. Aerm... did I mention the preamble dialog is _far

Re: [patch] more signals

On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:02:33AM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > >> And how does calling BufferView through FuncRequest (through/passing > >> BufferView again) leads to cleaner code as opposed to calling it > >> directly? > > > > *shrug* > > > > Perhaps it doesn't.

Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?

On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, there certainly have been major improvements in the source code, > lots of "clean up", etc. The "GUII" effort, as you call it. > > But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features, > from the user's s

Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:41:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As you say below, users on the Windows platform building binaries > linked to the QT non-commercial windows toolkit, and distributing them, > will be breaking the LyX GPL license. You are right, but the critical point is 'distr

Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked > binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the > dubious inside-the-same-organization GPL "exemption", but most will not. >

<    1   2