On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:47:15AM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> > Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
>> > email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for t
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
>> email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for them
>> if the patch is OK.
>
> Patch looks good. I'd say commit it if there
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:47:15AM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
> > email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for them
> > if the patch is OK.
>
> Patch looks good. I'd say commit
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
> email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for them
> if the patch is OK.
Patch looks good. I'd say commit it if there are no more comments.
Jürgen
Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013 um 23:13:02, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
> email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for them
> if the patch is OK.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
I like the icons.
Kornel
signature.
Any comments on the patch in the previous email? Attached to this
email are the icons that Enrico proposed. I will add support for them
if the patch is OK.
Thanks,
Scott
<><><><>
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Op 22-12-2012 7:05, Scott Kostyshak schreef:
>> diff --git a/lib/bind/cua.bind b/lib/bind/cua.bind
>> index 4d6c286..44bfcf6 100644
>> --- a/lib/bind/cua.bind
>> +++ b/lib/bind/cua.bind
>> @@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ Format 1
>>
>> \bind "M
Op 22-12-2012 7:05, Scott Kostyshak schreef:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Wrong patch.
Sorry about that. Correct patch attached.
Thanks, Scott
diff --git a/lib/bind/cua.bind b/lib/bind/cua.bind
index 4d6c286..44bfcf6 1006
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> Should I make (four) buttons for the table toolbar? I'm not sure if
>> this feature is worth adding 4 buttons for. I don't see why a user
>> would prefer to use a button instead of a keybo
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Wrong patch.
Sorry about that. Correct patch attached.
Thanks, Scott
From 43c8594ac5ac0eba2c2dcc224dd8921b19498a25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Kostyshak
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:2
On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I
On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I make (four) buttons for the table toolbar? I'm no
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>>> Is my bracket-scoping poor style? I do this to make sure i don't use
>
>> you never see this in
>> the LyX code. So maybe use it during development and remove it for what you
>> commit?
>
> +1
I removed it.
>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/08/2012 02:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what the expected behavior is when multirows are involved.
>> Suppose that the user is going to do a move row down
>> (PARAGRAPH_MOVE_DOWN).
>> In particular:
>> (1) What if th
Richard Heck wrote:
>> In particular:
>> (1) What if the current row contains a cell that is part of a multirow?
>> (2) What if not (1) but the row beneath it has a cell that is part of
>> a multirow?
>>
>> I see two solutions:
>> (a) In cases (1) and (2) disable the LFUN.
I would favor (a).
>> I
On 12/08/2012 02:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
This patch implements a "move row" feature for tabular. The purpose is
to provide a useful behavior in tabular that is consistent with
PARAGRAPH_MOVE_UP and PARAGRAPH_MOVE_DOWN so that the user can do, for
example, alt- to move a row up.
I don't use
This patch implements a "move row" feature for tabular. The purpose is
to provide a useful behavior in tabular that is consistent with
PARAGRAPH_MOVE_UP and PARAGRAPH_MOVE_DOWN so that the user can do, for
example, alt- to move a row up.
If there is any selection, the LFUN is disabled. This is con
18 matches
Mail list logo
