Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
What harmful effect to usability?
| Too many preferences are a serious pain.
| What's the problem of setting them to a constant 9?
| [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
This
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
This poll is not a vote, it it to discover if users use it and how.
Come on. You know what I mean.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
This poll is not a vote, it it to discover if users use it and how.
| Come on. You know what I mean.
What? I use it with a setting of 9
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, John Levon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
but then the configurability loses a lot of
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:31:10PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
I think the best solution is to hardcode (9 ?) it, and move it to a
submenu like most other programs do.
Maybe. Certainly get rid of the lastfiles naming. If you put it in a
submenu then maybe you'd let me set it to 20?
John Levon wrote:
Maybe. Certainly get rid of the lastfiles naming. If you put it in a
submenu then maybe you'd let me set it to 20? Assuming I can convince
of my need to see all the component documents of my thesis and an
older backup of it in my lastfiles (9 only shows my thesis).
Mmmm,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:38:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
And you hopefully see that different people have different opinions
about how high the lastfiles number should be. So in the end IMO the
configurability of this has it's reasoning and as Josè told us it should
be between [0..n]
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> What "harmful effect to usability"?
>
| Too many preferences are a serious pain.
| What's the problem of setting them to a constant 9?
>
| [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
>
> This poll is not a vote, it it to discover if users use it and how.
Come on. You know what I mean.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | [Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
>>
>> This poll is not a vote, it it to discover if users use it and how.
>
| Come on. You know what I mean.
What? "I use it with a
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
>
> > Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
> > list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
> > but then the configurability loses a
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:31:10PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > I think the best solution is to hardcode (9 ?) it, and move it to a
> > submenu like most other programs do.
>
> Maybe. Certainly get rid of the lastfiles naming. If you put it in a
> submenu then maybe you'd let me set it to 20?
John Levon wrote:
>>Maybe. Certainly get rid of the lastfiles naming. If you put it in a
>>submenu then maybe you'd let me set it to 20? Assuming I can convince
>>of my need to see all the component documents of my thesis and an
>>older backup of it in my lastfiles (9 only shows my thesis).
>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:38:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> And you hopefully see that different people have different opinions
> about how high the lastfiles number should be. So in the end IMO the
> configurability of this has it's reasoning and as Josè told us it should
> be between
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
John wrote:
I just got a more for the last entry on File--clicking on it
showed a single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the
entry that should have been it its
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2/ increase the constant, which is currently 25. What would be a good
number?
I see 20 + the more.
I don't suppose it can be based on window height? If the console
version
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It is an idea of mine :) When moving the toc code out of the xforms
frontend, I decided that the code that added 'More...' for long menus
could better be used in the generic case. The menu length can be
increased with
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
John wrote:
It is an idea of mine :) When moving the toc code out of the xforms
frontend, I decided that the code that added 'More...' for long
menus could better be used in the
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 16:58, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
The limit is 9, and I don't consider that an abscene since I use it. ;-)
I changed the preferences value by hand but lyx detected that it was out of
range [4,9]
JMarc
--
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John How did it ever happen with File anyway ? Surely it only applies
John to Navigate menu.
Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
b) why do we have the
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John How did it ever happen with File anyway ? Surely it only applies
John to Navigate menu.
Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
| a) why do we have the ability to
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
why not?
Are you serious ?
Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
| b) why do we have the ability to disable lastfiles ?
do we?
It sure
Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
JAOM The limit is 9, and I don't consider that an abscene since I use it. ;-)
JAOM I changed the preferences value by hand but lyx detected that it was out of
JAOM range [4,9]
Why not use a lastfiles value of X, and when there's X
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:49:44PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
Why not use a lastfiles value of X, and when there's X lastfiles
display only X-2 in the menu and put the remaining 3+ lastfiles in the
more list? Then it would at least look nicer...
Philipp
Don't we do this already ? I
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 18:55, John Levon wrote:
Don't we do this already ? I think it was just a silly that JMarc added
...
IIRC this code is from Lars. :-)
Don't blame Jean-Marc, at least for this. ;-)
I see no reason to have this configurable (especially to such a silly
range).
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:10:51PM +0100, José Abílio Oliveira Matos wrote:
IIRC this code is from Lars. :-)
Don't blame Jean-Marc, at least for this. ;-)
I was referring to More appearing in File menu
Actuallly the range should be [0..n], where 0 means no last file, the user
JL I see no reason to have this configurable (especially to such a silly
JL range).
Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
but then the configurability loses a lot of its point. Maybe one could
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
but then the configurability loses a lot of its point. Maybe one could
also make the
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| | a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
|
| why not?
|
| Are you serious ?
|
| Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
That would only be a
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:48:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| why not?
|
| Are you serious ?
|
| Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
That would only be a benefit for elephant hunters, and we do not have
many of those as users.
We also don't
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:48:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| | why not?
| |
| | Are you serious ?
| |
| | Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
|
| That would only be a benefit for elephant hunters, and
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
No, it is in active use.
By you ? Why ? (or this going to be another hey, let's be illogical
without even attempting to give a justification, despite its harmful
effect to usability ?)
regards
john
--
When your name is
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| No, it is in active use.
|
| By you ?
Do a poll.
| Why ? (or this going to be another hey, let's be illogical
| without even attempting to give a justification, despite its
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| No, it is in active use.
|
| By you ?
Do a poll.
OK I will.
| Why ? (or this going to be another hey, let's be illogical
| without even attempting to give a justification, despite its harmful
| effect to
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:58:20PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
It's yet more prefs clutter - can I please remove it ?
I don't care.
Well, actually I think I'd prefer it being thrown out.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
What harmful effect to usability?
Too many preferences are a serious pain.
What's the problem of setting them to a constant 9?
[Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
John> wrote:
>> I just got a "more" for the last entry on File--clicking on it
>> showed a single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the
>> entry that should
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2/ increase the constant, which is currently 25. What would be a good
> number?
I see 20 + the more.
I don't suppose it can be based on window height? If the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It is an idea of mine :) When moving the toc code out of the xforms
> frontend, I decided that the code that added 'More...' for long menus
> could better be used in the generic case. The menu length can be
> increased with
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
John> wrote:
>> It is an idea of mine :) When moving the toc code out of the xforms
>> frontend, I decided that the code that added 'More...' for long
>> menus could better
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 16:58, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
The limit is 9, and I don't consider that an abscene since I use it. ;-)
I changed the preferences value by hand but lyx detected that it was out of
range [4,9]
> JMarc
--
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> John> How did it ever happen with File anyway ? Surely it only applies
> John> to Navigate menu.
>
> Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
b) why do we have the
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
>> John> How did it ever happen with File anyway ? Surely it only applies
>> John> to Navigate menu.
>>
>> Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
>
| a) why do we have
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
>
> why not?
Are you serious ?
Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
> | b) why do we have the ability to disable lastfiles ?
>
> do we?
It
>> Setting lastfile limit to an obscene value, maybe.
JAOM> The limit is 9, and I don't consider that an abscene since I use it. ;-)
JAOM> I changed the preferences value by hand but lyx detected that it was out of
JAOM> range [4,9]
Why not use a lastfiles value of X, and when there's >X
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:49:44PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> Why not use a lastfiles value of X, and when there's >X lastfiles
> display only X-2 in the menu and put the remaining 3+ lastfiles in the
> more list? Then it would at least look nicer...
>
> Philipp
Don't we do this
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 18:55, John Levon wrote:
>
> Don't we do this already ? I think it was just a silly that JMarc added
> ...
IIRC this code is from Lars. :-)
Don't blame Jean-Marc, at least for this. ;-)
> I see no reason to have this configurable (especially to such a silly
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:10:51PM +0100, José Abílio Oliveira Matos wrote:
> IIRC this code is from Lars. :-)
> Don't blame Jean-Marc, at least for this. ;-)
I was referring to More appearing in File menu
> Actuallly the range should be [0..n], where 0 means no last file, the user
>
JL> I see no reason to have this configurable (especially to such a silly
JL> range).
Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
but then the configurability loses a lot of its point. Maybe one could
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> Of course, one could configure a maximum of 9, display up to 9 in the
> list and then break it at 7 to populate the submenu with 3 entries,
> but then the configurability loses a lot of its point. Maybe one could
> also make
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > | a) why do we have the ability to set a limit ?
| >
| > why not?
|
| Are you serious ?
|
| Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
That would only
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:48:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > why not?
> |
> | Are you serious ?
> |
> | Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
>
> That would only be a benefit for elephant hunters, and we do not have
> many of those as users.
We also
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:48:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > | > why not?
| > |
| > | Are you serious ?
| > |
| > | Why don't we install an elephant recognising system into LyX too ?
| >
| > That would only be a benefit for elephant
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, it is in active use.
By you ? Why ? (or this going to be another "hey, let's be illogical
without even attempting to give a justification, despite its harmful
effect to usability" ?)
regards
john
--
"When your name is
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > No, it is in active use.
|
| By you ?
Do a poll.
| Why ? (or this going to be another "hey, let's be illogical
| without even attempting to give a justification, despite its
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > No, it is in active use.
> |
> | By you ?
>
> Do a poll.
OK I will.
> | Why ? (or this going to be another "hey, let's be illogical
> | without even attempting to give a justification, despite its harmful
> | effect
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:58:20PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> It's yet more prefs clutter - can I please remove it ?
I don't care.
Well, actually I think I'd prefer it being thrown out.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:20:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> What "harmful effect to usability"?
Too many preferences are a serious pain.
What's the problem of setting them to a constant 9?
[Concerning the poll: My vote for John]
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in
I just got a more for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
should have been it its place.
I have no idea how to produce useful information on this. Screenshot?
Something from gdb? Other?
hawk
--
Richard E.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
I just got a more for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
should have been it its place.
I don't understand, how is our menu deciding to add
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:33:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
I just got a more for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
should have been it
I just got a "more" for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
should have been it its place.
I have no idea how to produce useful information on this. Screenshot?
Something from gdb? Other?
hawk
--
Richard E.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> I just got a "more" for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
> single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
> should have been it its place.
I don't understand, how is our menu deciding to
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:33:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > I just got a "more" for the last entry on File--clicking on it showed a
> > single entry. That is, the more was only to get to the entry that
> > should have
64 matches
Mail list logo
