On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:03:24PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Me too
AOL. I've already been cancelling a few "sends" recently, I'll try to do
so more often ;)
Apologies to anybody I've annoyed.
regards
john
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
> | I just tire of being at the receiving end. (mostly).
>
> I'll try to be more civil, and to not come with unwarranted
> accusations.
Me too
Andre'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| I just tire of being at the receiving end. (mostly).
I'll try to be more civil, and to not come with unwarranted
accusations.
--
Lgb
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I just tire of being at the receiving end. (mostly).
C'mon, guys! Lars is feeling got at. André is feeling got at. John
has been got at for bloody ages. It's crap and it's pissing us all
off.
Can we be civilised please?
--
Angus
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
This patch may be more to your liking.
>>>
>> | ???
>> | It is exactly what I posted back to you. Why not just apply it and
>> | move on?
>
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> This patch may be more to your liking.
>>
> | ???
> | It is exactly what I posted back to you. Why not just apply it and
> | move on?
>
> Just almost exactly the same.
How so? Cuttong and
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> This patch may be more to your liking.
>
| ???
| It is exactly what I posted back to you. Why not just apply it and
| move on?
Just almost exactly the same.
Thanks for not just saying "yes" and reading your cvs mail.
--
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> This patch may be more to your liking.
???
It is exactly what I posted back to you. Why not just apply it and
move on?
--
Angus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> I actually thought I had a clean tree...
| | Yeh, yeh, yeh ;-)
This patch may be more to your liking.
? unknown-2.diff
Index: src/ChangeLog
===
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> I actually thought I had a clean tree...
| Yeh, yeh, yeh ;-)
>
| Incidentally, I do like the idea of your #include changes, but I did
| note that there was a cvs conflict in one of the Qt files...
So perhaps I shouldn't cl
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I actually thought I had a clean tree...
Yeh, yeh, yeh ;-)
Incidentally, I do like the idea of your #include changes, but I did
note that there was a cvs conflict in one of the Qt files...
--
Angus
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>>
>> | | If you're saying that such commands should be filtered out
>> | | before they get to the ASSERT, then that's fair enough, but some
>> | | work is needed because at
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
> | | If you're saying that such commands should be filtered out
> | | before they get to the ASSERT, then that's fair enough, but some
> | | work is needed because at the moment I can trigger the ASSERT as
> | | simpl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| | If you're saying that such commands should be filtered out before
| | they get to the ASSERT, then that's fair enough, but some work is
| | needed because at the moment I can trigger the ASSERT as simply as this:
>
| Sure. We have a bug, but it i
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | So I have a copy of pybliographer (say) that hasn't kept up with
>> | the changing LyX syntax and the first time I use it I crash LyX?
>>>
>> | You're absolutely barking mad if you think that will improve the
>> | public p
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | So I have a copy of pybliographer (say) that hasn't kept up with
> | the changing LyX syntax and the first time I use it I crash LyX?
>>
> | You're absolutely barking mad if you think that will improve the
> | public perception of our rock-solid piece of software!
>
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | So now an external program can connect to LyX through either the
>> | lyxserver or the lyxsocket, send an unknown command and ...
>>>
>> | Hey presto! LyX commits suicide.
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | So now an external program can connect to LyX through either the
> | lyxserver or the lyxsocket, send an unknown command and ...
>>
> | Hey presto! LyX commits suicide.
>>
> | Niice!
>
> :-) Great isn't it?
>
>
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So now an external program can connect to LyX through either the
| lyxserver or the lyxsocket, send an unknown command and ...
>
| Hey presto! LyX commits suicide.
>
| Niice!
:-) Great isn't it?
You are obviouls sending something that is not a
Angus Leeming wrote:
> So now an external program can connect to LyX through either the
> lyxserver or the lyxsocket, send an unknown command and ...
>
> Hey presto! LyX commits suicide.
>
> Niice!
>
> bool LyXAction::funcHasFlag(kb_action action,
> LyXAction
So now an external program can connect to LyX through either the
lyxserver or the lyxsocket, send an unknown command and ...
Hey presto! LyX commits suicide.
Niice!
bool LyXAction::funcHasFlag(kb_action action,
LyXAction::func_attrib flag) const
{
inf
21 matches
Mail list logo
