On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:59:58AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > As in "can't run batch converters anymore just because someone views a
> > lyx file"?
>
> Shouldn't at least this one be easy if single instance v.s. multiple
> instances is contr
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> As in "can't run batch converters anymore just because someone views a
> lyx file"?
Shouldn't at least this one be easy if single instance v.s. multiple
instances is controlled via options on the command line (or have a setting
in the preferences). It
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:11:11PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
José Matos wrote:
What is the difference to what we have now?
Why don't we see people complaining about that?
In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process can
have multiple windows, th
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 07:05:34PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Joost Verburg wrote:
> >Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>>Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However
> >>>now we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
> >>>anymore to start multiple LyX
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:34:20PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Thanks Abdel, this is very good. We should add it some where in the wiki.
And to the code somewhere. Perhaps BufferView.C with pointers from
buffer and LyXView.
Andre'
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:25:05PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
> >If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
> >start LyX twice.
>
> Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However no
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 07:11:34PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >| Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
> >| we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
> >| anymore to start multiple LyX instances. Can someone take
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:48:33PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:25:05PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
>
> > Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > > I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
> > > If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
> > > start Ly
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:18:53PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>I can explain you how it works on Windows,
> >
> >Yes please.
>
> You can use a mutex to detect the running process and a window message
> to have the existing process start a new document.
Windows has
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:09:08PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >sure it does. I do this all the time with emacs and firefox.
>
> Firefox has only a single process for all windows.
>
> In LyX you can have right now:
>
> 1) Multiple LyX instances (different processes
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:11:11PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > What is the difference to what we have now?
> >
> > Why don't we see people complaining about that?
>
> In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process can
> have multiple windows, there s
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:04:51PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process
> | can have multiple windows, there should only be one running process.
>
> Lars> I d
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:39:02PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >We have a filesystem...
> >Filesystems are shared between computers...
> >Computer have users...
> >Users run LyX...
> >LyX loads the same file...
>
> LyX can set a write lock on open files.
How?
NFS l
Bo Peng wrote:
What is TabWidget? I will be satisfied with a split (vertical or
horizontal) window option, even if there are at most two windows, and
the split has to be half half.
I agree. A split window would be fine.
Michael
Bo Peng wrote:
1) make sure that the two windows size (the BufferView) are exactly the
same size.
2) Instead of multi-window we could implement the multi-workarea within
one window using the TabWidget solution I have outlined earlier. Then,
we will be sure that two BufferView of the same Buffer
1) make sure that the two windows size (the BufferView) are exactly the
same size.
2) Instead of multi-window we could implement the multi-workarea within
one window using the TabWidget solution I have outlined earlier. Then,
we will be sure that two BufferView of the same Buffer would have the
e
Bo Peng wrote:
Georg is right, the LyX core is not ready for Multiple-view. There's too
much that needs to be re-designed. So either someone steps up and
cleanup that mess by putting the rows calculation outside of the Buffer
or we disable the multi-windows feature.
I would be really disappoint
Georg is right, the LyX core is not ready for Multiple-view. There's too
much that needs to be re-designed. So either someone steps up and
cleanup that mess by putting the rows calculation outside of the Buffer
or we disable the multi-windows feature.
I would be really disappointed to see mutlti
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > | | > A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which
| > part
| > | > of the buffer is viewed.
| > |
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>>
A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
of the buffer is viewed.
>>> This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its own
>>> unique BufferV
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>>
A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
of the buffer is viewed.
>>> This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its own
>>> unique BufferV
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > | | > A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which
| > part
| > | > of the buffer is viewed.
| > | | This is what we have alrea
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
|
| > A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
| > of the buffer is viewed.
|
| This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its
| own unique BufferView
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
of the buffer is viewed.
This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its own
unique BufferView which is a view of one part of the document. E
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> This does not help. But after a CTRL-N all is fine,
>> so it couldn't be that hard for someone who knows
>> all the details. ;)
>
> Yeah, it was not that hard (see below). It's just that I don't have much
> time.
>
> Ab
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
|
| > A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
| > of the buffer is viewed.
|
| This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its
| own unique BufferView which is a view of one part of
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>>
>> A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
>> of the buffer is viewed.
>
> This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its own
> unique BufferView which is a view of one part of the document. Except
Peter Kümmel wrote:
A other solution is to somehow handle within the views which part
of the buffer is viewed.
This is what we have already: Each LyXView (WorkArea really) has its own
unique BufferView which is a view of one part of the document. Except
for some cursor bug (the famous dEPM
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I propose to remove the multi-window feature from the menu, or even
> remove the LFUN entirely. We can have it back when the new TabWidget
> that will replace the tabbar is ready (most probably in 1.6).
But we could also explain it to the user how it works:
"Beware ther
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Bo Peng wrote:
>>> Yeah, it was not that hard (see below). It's just that I don't have much
>>> time.
>>
>> This does solves my bookmark problem, but are you sure it is a good
>> idea to open all buffers that was opened in the parent window?
>
> I know you understand the
Bo Peng wrote:
Yeah, it was not that hard (see below). It's just that I don't have much
time.
This does solves my bookmark problem, but are you sure it is a good
idea to open all buffers that was opened in the parent window?
I know you understand the difference but for the sake of clarity let
José Matos wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 November 2006 6:11 pm, Joost Verburg wrote:
>>
>> It does not make sense to allow multiple instances when each instance
>> can also have multiple windows. There is no way to tell which window
>> belongs to which instance and therefore you can easily loose data b
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Joost Verburg
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > sure it does. I do this all the time with emacs and firefox.
> |
> | Firefox has only a single process for all windows.
> |
> | In LyX you can have right now:
> |
> | 1) Multiple LyX
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:15:08PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Joost> Agreed. As I said earlier, the developers can use a setting so
> > Joost> it will be possible for them to run multiple LyX processes.
> > Joost> That will be useful for debugging, testing etc.
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:39:02PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > We have a filesystem...
> > Filesystems are shared between computers...
> > Computer have users...
> > Users run LyX...
> > LyX loads the same file...
>
> LyX can set a write lock on open files.
>
> >
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Enrico" == Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Enrico> However, I don't think it is wise using different mechanisms
> Enrico> on different platforms. Maybe the socket code could be
> Enrico> switched from
Yeah, it was not that hard (see below). It's just that I don't have much
time.
This does solves my bookmark problem, but are you sure it is a good
idea to open all buffers that was opened in the parent window?
My proposal was that we do not open any buffer but allow users to
switch to them from
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
This does not help. But after a CTRL-N all is fine,
so it couldn't be that hard for someone who knows
all the details. ;)
Yeah, it was not that hard (see below). It's just that I don't have much
time.
Abdel.
This commit initialise correctly the t
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We have a filesystem...
Filesystems are shared between computers...
Computer have users...
Users run LyX...
LyX loads the same file...
LyX can set a write lock on open files.
It is not a requirement, and why are you talking about synchronizing
documents? We only wan
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | There is a reason why all word processors that support multiple
| > | windows have a single running process. It should not be possible to
| > | open the same document multiple times when the data is not shared
| > | betw
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I can explain you how it works on Windows,
Yes please.
You can use a mutex to detect the running process and a window message
to have the existing process start a new document.
Joost
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Joost> Agreed. As I said earlier, the developers can use a setting so
Joost> it will be possible for them to run multiple LyX processes.
Joost> That will be useful for debugging, testing etc.
Or useful in real life, for people who know what they are doing.
Yes. But
> "Joost" == Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joost> Agreed. As I said earlier, the developers can use a setting so
Joost> it will be possible for them to run multiple LyX processes.
Joost> That will be useful for debugging, testing etc.
Or useful in real life, for people who know wh
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| There is a reason why all word processors that support multiple
| windows have a single running process. It should not be possible to
| open the same document multiple times when the data is not shared
| between the windows.
It does not follow that a single running
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Let's say we should use the same instance by default (to avoid
surprises), but there should be a way to launch a new instance.
Agreed. As I said earlier, the developers can use a setting so it will
be possible for them to run multiple LyX processes. That will be use
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process
| can have multiple windows, there should only be one running process.
Lars> I don't get this logic.
Let's say we should use the same instance by default (to avo
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I would have liked us to have some better control over files that
| > might have changed on disk though. (And this is a problem we have
| > regardless of only one lyx instance or not.)
|
| There is a reason why all word processors that support multipl
> "Enrico" == Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Enrico> However, I don't think it is wise using different mechanisms
Enrico> on different platforms. Maybe the socket code could be
Enrico> switched from AF_UNIX to AF_INET such that lyxclient would
Enrico> also work on Windows.
We a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| 2) and 3) share the same data, but 1) does not. Do you really expect
| the users to know which windows belong to which instance?
as a matter of fact, yes I do.
The windows look identical. There is no way to tell the difference.
I would have liked us to have some
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| > What is the difference to what we have now?
| > Why don't we see people complaining about that?
|
| In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process
| can have multiple windows, there should only be one runni
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > sure it does. I do this all the time with emacs and firefox.
|
| Firefox has only a single process for all windows.
|
| In LyX you can have right now:
|
| 1) Multiple LyX instances (different processes)
| 2) Multiple win
José Matos wrote:
What is the difference to what we have now?
Why don't we see people complaining about that?
In LyX 1.4 there is one window per process. However now one process can
have multiple windows, there should only be one running process.
Joost
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
sure it does. I do this all the time with emacs and firefox.
Firefox has only a single process for all windows.
In LyX you can have right now:
1) Multiple LyX instances (different processes)
2) Multiple windows per instance
3) Multiple documents per window
2) and 3
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 6:11 pm, Joost Verburg wrote:
>
> It does not make sense to allow multiple instances when each instance
> can also have multiple windows. There is no way to tell which window
> belongs to which instance and therefore you can easily loose data by
> saving the wrong vers
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
| > | we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
| > | anymore to start multiple LyX instances. Can someone take a look at
| > |
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
> >> we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible anymore
> >> to start multiple LyX instances.
> >
> > Unless
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
| we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
| anymore to start multiple LyX instances. Can someone take a look at
| this?
Why?
It does not make sense to allow multiple inst
Joost Verburg wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However
now we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
anymore to start multiple LyX instances. Can someone take a look at
this?
Could you post again the code to do s
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
| > If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
| > start LyX twice.
|
| Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
| we have this
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible
anymore to start multiple LyX instances. Can someone take a look at this?
Could you post again the code to do so?
I can explain you
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible anymore
to start multiple LyX instances.
Unless specifically requested. I have your word that I can have
that option ;-)
Sure, a com
Joost Verburg wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
start LyX twice.
Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
we have this multiple window feature, it should no
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bo Peng wrote:
I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
start LyX twice.
When I edit a large lyx file, I often need to refer to another part of
the file. Two windows (or two panels) would help me a lot.
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:25:05PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
> > If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
> > start LyX twice.
>
> Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. Howeve
Bo Peng wrote:
>> I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
>> If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
>> start LyX twice.
>
> When I edit a large lyx file, I often need to refer to another part of
> the file. Two windows (or two panels) would help me a lot. Of cour
Bo Peng wrote:
It is very wrong to have the tabbar show _all_ buffers. Can't we
change it right now to show only buffers in current LyXView?
I do not like that behavior either. I propose that
1. view->Documents show all documents that is opened in all windows
2. tabs only show opened documents
I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
start LyX twice.
When I edit a large lyx file, I often need to refer to another part of
the file. Two windows (or two panels) would help me a lot. Of course I
can start two lyx insta
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I don't understand why we need this new Window feature.
If someone wants two top level LyX programs then he could
start LyX twice.
Sometimes you want to edit to same document in two places. However now
we have this multiple window feature, it should not be possible anymore
Bo Peng wrote:
>> It is very wrong to have the tabbar show _all_ buffers. Can't we
>> change it right now to show only buffers in current LyXView?
>
> I do not like that behavior either. I propose that
> 1. view->Documents show all documents that is opened in all windows
> 2. tabs only show opened
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> You've done a good job there thanks!
>>>
>>> On request though: Could you please load the TabBar (if there's more
>>> than document that is) by default when a new Window is opened?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advanc
It is very wrong to have the tabbar show _all_ buffers. Can't we
change it right now to show only buffers in current LyXView?
I do not like that behavior either. I propose that
1. view->Documents show all documents that is opened in all windows
2. tabs only show opened documents in *this* window
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And what I say is the buffer_switch should show the buffer in the
>> current view, not change view. We have OS support for switching
>> between windows.
>>
>> If this is not good enough, it is probably that our model is not
>
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Bo Peng wrote:
>> Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
>> Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
>>
>> For sessions or in normal use?
> for restoring
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Bo Peng wrote:
Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
For sessions or in normal use?
for restoring session.
No, this is not for session, it is for bookmarks and
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bo> 1. open documents in one window, save bookmarks 2. open a new
Bo> window. View->Documents and Bookmarks are grayed out. If I enable
Bo> them and click, lyx will crash since there is no valid view to
Bo> display the buff
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> As I said multiple times, this problem will be solved
Abdelrazak> implicitely when Peter enable the tabbar on _all_ windows.
I do not understand whatthe tabbar has to be with buffer_switch.
JMarc
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bo> 1. open documents in one window, save bookmarks 2. open a new
Bo> window. View->Documents and Bookmarks are grayed out. If I enable
Bo> them and click, lyx will crash since there is no valid view to
Bo> display the buffer.
Bo> What we want is
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Bo Peng wrote:
>>> > Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
>>> > Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
>>> >
>>> > For sessions or in normal use?
>>>
>>> for restoring session.
>>
>> No, this is not for session, it is for
Bo Peng wrote:
> Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
> Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
>
> For sessions or in normal use?
for restoring session.
No, this is not for session, it is for bookmarks and documents menus.
Currently,
1. open
> Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
> Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
>
> For sessions or in normal use?
for restoring session.
No, this is not for session, it is for bookmarks and documents menus. Currently,
1. open documents in one
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I do not understand why buffer-switch should be used to restore
sessions. This looks wrong.
Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and f
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do not understand why buffer-switch should be used to restore
>> sessions. This looks wrong.
Abdelrazak> So explain me how you are going to switch to file-A on
Abdelrazak> view-1, file-C on view-2 and file-B on view-3?
For
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, in order to restore a session properly, this or that
Abdelrazak> LyXView should be switched to this or that buffer. But, as
Abdelrazak> said above we can have this feature without modifying
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, in order to restore a session properly, this or that
Abdelrazak> LyXView should be switched to this or that buffer. But, as
Abdelrazak> said above we can have this feature without modifying
Abdelrazak> buffer-switc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, the real problem is to allow SWITCH_BUFFER to switch to a
buffer that is opened in another window. Can you do it?
Abdelrazak> We need to pass the LyXView id to the LFUN.
I think a better solution
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, the real problem is to allow SWITCH_BUFFER to switch to a
>> buffer that is opened in another window. Can you do it?
Abdelrazak> We need to pass the LyXView id to the LFUN.
Do you mean that switch_buffer should change vie
Bo Peng wrote:
Now I'm here: see png.
But how do I make the menu->view items clickable?
After the first new tab (CTRL-N) they are clickable,
updateMenubar() does not help.
In lyxfunc.C, LFUN_SIWTCH_BUFFER is not processed when there is no
valid buffer. You can move line 422-438 to 355 to solve
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter,
You've done a good job there thanks!
On request though: Could you please load the TabBar (if there's more
than document that is) by default when a new Window is opened?
Thanks in advance,
Abdel.
I see, this is a bug.
Now I'm here: see p
Now I'm here: see png.
But how do I make the menu->view items clickable?
After the first new tab (CTRL-N) they are clickable,
updateMenubar() does not help.
In lyxfunc.C, LFUN_SIWTCH_BUFFER is not processed when there is no
valid buffer. You can move line 422-438 to 355 to solve this problem.
T
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter,
>
> You've done a good job there thanks!
>
> On request though: Could you please load the TabBar (if there's more
> than document that is) by default when a new Window is opened?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Abdel.
>
>
I see, this is a bug.
Now I'm here: see png
Peter,
You've done a good job there thanks!
On request though: Could you please load the TabBar (if there's more
than document that is) by default when a new Window is opened?
Thanks in advance,
Abdel.
91 matches
Mail list logo
