Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-27 Thread Johnathan Burchill
Howdy, A colleague asked me if there was anything that MS word could do well, that LyX couldn't, and all I could think of was drag-n-dropping image files into the document. That got me to thinking what it would take to implement it in LyX. Here's one solution, albeit somewhat naive perhaps, as

Re: Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-28 Thread Angus Leeming
Johnathan Burchill wrote: > Howdy, Howdy, Johnathan. It's good to have you back. > A colleague asked me if there was anything that MS word could do well, > that LyX couldn't, and all I could think of was drag-n-dropping image > files into the document. That got me to thinking what it would take

Re: Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-28 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The 1.4.0 current cvs patch follows. Angus> I'll comment on it when I've had time to digest it. >> Let me know if you want the patch for 1.3.5. Angus> Jean-Marc's world. It seems sufficiently simple to be acceptable. I think we shou

Re: Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-28 Thread Angus Leeming
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It seems sufficiently simple to be acceptable. I think we should work > on the 1.4.0 integration first, though. > > One thing that I would like to see is using methods from the graphics > loader used for deciding whether the file is OK instead of > QImageIO::imageForm

Re: Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-28 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Angus> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> It seems sufficiently simple to be acceptable. I think we should >> work on the 1.4.0 integration first, though. >> >> One thing that I would like to see is using methods from the >> graphics loader u

Re: Drag-n-drop image files (QT)

2005-01-28 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 15:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Angus> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> It seems sufficiently simple to be acceptable. I think we should > >> work on the 1.4.0 integration first, though. > >> > >> One thing