Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, we have had this complaint for a long time. I did find some
problems at the time, but fixing them was obviously not enough.
As far as I can tell, it always crashes at the same point for me.
Thomas * dual head without xinerama (obviously) *
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, we have had this complaint for a long time. I did find some
> problems at the time, but fixing them was obviously not enough.
As far as I can tell, it always crashes at the same point for me.
> Thomas> * dual head without xinerama
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have had reports of this kind some time ago already, but did not
manage to identify and fix the problem. Can you run xforms programs
(ie fdesign) succesfully?
I don't have fdesign, but I tested xplot and xwatch, which work
without any problem.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have had reports of this kind some time ago already, but did not
> manage to identify and fix the problem. Can you run xforms programs
> (ie fdesign) succesfully?
I don't have fdesign, but I tested xplot and xwatch, which work
without any
Hi,
it seems I found a strange bug in LyX when used on the second of two X
screens.
When I start X on the main screen (:0.0), everything is fine. But when
I start on the second screen of my dual screen setup (:0.1), it
crashes as soon as I open a new or an existing file. So I suppose it
could
Hi,
it seems I found a strange bug in LyX when used on the second of two X
screens.
When I start X on the main screen (:0.0), everything is fine. But when
I start on the second screen of my dual screen setup (:0.1), it
crashes as soon as I open a new or an existing file. So I suppose it
could
Hi,
I would like to compile lyx for libc5 (aout), so that I can use it
with mulinux. gcc 2.7.2 is the latest compiler with support for libc5.
Should that be possible in general?
AFAIC autoconf works ok up the configuration of libsigc++. According
to the website of libsigc++, it cannot be
Hi,
I would like to compile lyx for libc5 (aout), so that I can use it
with mulinux. gcc 2.7.2 is the latest compiler with support for libc5.
Should that be possible in general?
AFAIC autoconf works ok up the configuration of libsigc++. According
to the website of libsigc++, it cannot be
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
any comments to the gui?
Seems ok, I especially like the Scale % thing.
How is the % of column width handled? Is it in Width/Height? Maybe
all the scaling could be combined?
And I don't quite like the |#x lables. They just look a bit messy.
Yours
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> any comments to the gui?
Seems ok, I especially like the "Scale %" thing.
How is the "% of column width" handled? Is it in Width/Height? Maybe
all the scaling could be combined?
And I don't quite like the |#x lables. They just look a bit messy.
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
an euro, but I'm not able to insert it with the keyboard.
in all insets, like label, figure a.s.o., I get the currency
symbol with AltGr-e (the sputnik) which becomes after closing the
inset window the eurosign. but in lyx main-gui - nothing
What does
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> an euro, but I'm not able to insert it with the keyboard.
> in all insets, like label, figure a.s.o., I get the currency
> symbol with AltGr-e (the sputnik) which becomes after closing the
> inset window the eurosign. but in lyx main-gui -> nothing
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and for years, people have been forced to go to the manual to work out
^ some
how to enter lengths. More recently, we have had a vague help message
in some places.
Other people have entered length just as they always did.
The new
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and for years, people have been forced to go to the manual to work out
^ some
> how to enter lengths. More recently, we have had a vague help message
> in some places.
Other people have entered length just as they always did.
> The new
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why should I do a lyx-latex-lyx cycle?
You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
this is the only reason??
It is the only reason for doing the cycle I can see. Having said that,
interoperability in general is a
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> why should I do a lyx->latex->lyx cycle?
>>
>> You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
>
> this is the only reason??
It is the only reason for doing the cycle I can see. Having said that,
interoperability in
Uli Sorger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, I'd like to have better large document support.
Indeed. A folding mode would be cute...
With TeX parts the document can be typeset using the \includeonly (?)
command with correct cross references.
You can typeset even part documents in latex,
Uli Sorger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First, I'd like to have better large document support.
Indeed. A folding mode would be cute...
> With TeX parts the document can be typeset using the \includeonly (?)
> command with correct cross references.
You can typeset even "part" documents in
Hi,
I discovered a bug in math mode. If you enter (in math mode)
\tilde \overline{x
you actually get
\overline{\tilde\{x}}
The same happens when a document is read, where the above sequence
appears. Since there is no LaTeX limitation concerning either form, I
believe this to be a bug. (It
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
try \tilde{}\overline{x}
Which produces the same result, at least here. I can only produce the
above sequence editing the lyx-file by hand.
If I try to enter that construct using
\tilde{ \overline{ x
I get a very weird looking formula, which leads to
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but anyway, why can't you use the lyx math panel?
Fascinating idea. I hadn't thought that might to any good, but it
does. The math panel uses \widetilde, which solves the problem.
So the bug is still there, but at least I have a workaround.
Now if we
Hi,
I discovered a bug in math mode. If you enter (in math mode)
\tilde \overline{x
you actually get
\overline{\tilde\{x}}
The same happens when a document is read, where the above sequence
appears. Since there is no LaTeX limitation concerning either form, I
believe this to be a bug. (It
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> try \tilde{}\overline{x}
Which produces the same result, at least here. I can only produce the
above sequence editing the lyx-file by hand.
If I try to enter that construct using
\tilde{ \overline{ x
I get a very weird looking formula, which leads
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but anyway, why can't you use the lyx math panel?
Fascinating idea. I hadn't thought that might to any good, but it
does. The math panel uses \widetilde, which solves the problem.
So the bug is still there, but at least I have a workaround.
Now if
Hello,
I use LyX 1.1.4fix3 at home and LyX 1.1.5fix2 at work, that is i386
GNU/Linux Debian Potato and a current Debian Woody. Works like a
charm, but: LyX 1.1.5 writes a construct that breaks 1.1.4:
\layout Description
a\SpecialChar ~
b c
LyX 1.1.4 expects:
\layout Description
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure anybody promised backward compatability... Anyway, it's not
going to happen! Forward compatibility is Ok.
Beg to differ. Forward compatibility is a must and therefore not worth
mentioning. Backward compatibility is nice to have, and I
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, in general, it is impossible to be backward compatible always.
By this I mean that changes to the file format cannot possibly be
backward compatible.
Yes, I understand that. And I am the last person to complain about a
change to the better, even
Hello,
I use LyX 1.1.4fix3 at home and LyX 1.1.5fix2 at work, that is i386
GNU/Linux Debian Potato and a current Debian Woody. Works like a
charm, but: LyX 1.1.5 writes a construct that breaks 1.1.4:
\layout Description
a\SpecialChar ~
b c
LyX 1.1.4 expects:
\layout Description
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure anybody promised backward compatability... Anyway, it's not
> going to happen! Forward compatibility is Ok.
Beg to differ. Forward compatibility is a must and therefore not worth
mentioning. Backward compatibility is nice to have, and I
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, in general, it is impossible to be backward compatible always.
> By this I mean that changes to the file format cannot possibly be
> backward compatible.
Yes, I understand that. And I am the last person to complain about a
change to the better,
by Thomas Steffen, not to be forwarded
--
linux, linuctis - f, das beste Betriebssystem ;-) [Tobi in doc]
cludes the
necessary libraries. german nationalisation.
PS: lyx is great, but one feature is missing: scaling images. say you
want 50% of the original .eps size, there's no way to do that. maybe
you can add a button...
Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(C) Copyright 1999 by Th
32 matches
Mail list logo
