a few lines to prevent the insertion of a second 'preamble
inset' in the doc, it would be a bit more difficult to fix the position of
the inset at the beginning of the doc
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one.
lly enforced when reading a .lyx file.
Not all documents are read... some are created from scratch...
| It would be just a few lines to prevent the insertion of a second 'preamble
| inset' in the doc, it would be a bit more difficult to fix the position of
| the inset at the beginning of the do
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:44:09AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | It would be just a few lines to prevent the insertion of a second 'preamble
> | inset' in the doc, it would be a bit more difficult to fix the position of
> | the inset at the beginning of the doc
&
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The preamble dialog is not nice to use (not just the size, but the
> editing is very limited at least under xforms).
> So what about using a InsetPreamble (some collapsable inset, perhaps on
> top of InsertERT) instead of the separate preamble dialog?
>
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> But I do not think that this inset should be allowed anywhere...
Lars> IMHO only at the _very_ beginning of the document. And only one
Lars> of them.
Why? It would be a nice feature to
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:34:46AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Why? It would be a nice feature to be able to add preamble insets
> where you need them (a newcommand, for example) and have LyX place
> collect all the preamble snippets in the .tex. Actually, the ERT inset
> cou
ent. And only one
| Lars> of them.
|
| Why? It would be a nice feature to be able to add preamble insets
| where you need them (a newcommand, for example) and have LyX place
| collect all the preamble snippets in the .tex. Actually, the ERT inset
| could basically get a new flag saying 'place
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:58:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I think that enforcing the number and placement of preamble insets is
> | both clunky and not really necessary.
>
> What I really think is that preamble and ert hacking should not be
> needed and that w
ld insert a macro by
chosing from a browser.
Not that I care much about math macros, but I still hope that they will be
enhanced to a general macro feature.
(but I like the idea of a collapsable preamble)
Jürgen.
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:58:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | I think that enforcing the number and placement of preamble insets is
| > | both clunky and not really necessary.
| >
| > What I really think is that preamb
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> So my take on this is that we should provide features so that ERT and
> preamble hacking is only needed in "obscure" cases.
No problem with that.
[Even if my usage has 100% "obscure" cases by
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> "redefinition if 'barcmd' not allowed" what? where? me?
I guess our error tracking code could be able to take care of that and
put the error at the right place.
Lars> What
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:01:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Of course. But if we decide to put the preamble in the document
> itself, then forcing it to be in some place will really be a hack
> (additional ugly code for no use), whereas allowing several preamble
> snippets
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:01:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Of course. But if we decide to put the preamble in the document
> itself, then forcing it to be in some place will really be a hack
> (additional ugly code for no use), whereas allowing several preamble
And th
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
I actually hate the new behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
want to test stuff in the preamble. And I haven't been able to find a
shortcut for opening the preamble
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:35:48AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
Please file a bug for all I agree with below.
Yes, I've noticed, but I still miss the direct shortcut to the preamble...
users?... Anyway, an LFUN
John Levon wrote:
Yes, I've noticed, but I still miss the direct shortcut to the
preamble...
users?... Anyway, an LFUN solves this problem - any objections to
adding it as an enhancment request in bugzilla?
no objection
We already have such an LFUN:
case LFUN_LAYOUT_PREAMBLE
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 08:38:13PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
So the trick is to get the Qt frontend to actually act on it:
void Dialogs::showPreamble()
{
- // FIXME
+ pimpl_-document.controller().show();
+ // Code to tell the dialog to display the preamble tab
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
>
> > I actually hate the "new" behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
> > want to test stuff in the preamble. And I haven't been able to find
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:35:48AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
Please file a bug for all I agree with below.
> Yes, I've noticed, but I still miss the direct shortcut to the preamble...
> users?
John Levon wrote:
>> Yes, I've noticed, but I still miss the direct shortcut to the
>> preamble...
>> users?... Anyway, an LFUN solves this problem - any objections to
>> adding it as an enhancment request in bugzilla?
>
> no objection
We already h
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 08:38:13PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> So the trick is to get the Qt frontend to actually act on it:
>
> void Dialogs::showPreamble()
> {
> - // FIXME
> + pimpl_->document.controller().show();
> + // Code to tell the dialog
The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends similar in
this respect. What do xforms users think?
(Note, I haven't culled the preamble dialog yet, just given the document
dialog a preamble tab. If you like it, however, then I will remove the
preamble dialog entirely
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends
Angus similar in this respect. What do xforms users think?
Angus (Note, I haven't culled the preamble dialog yet, just given the
Angus document dialog a preamble tab. If you
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends
Angus similar in this respect. What do xforms users think?
Angus (Note, I haven't culled the preamble dialog yet, just given the
Angus
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus Trying this out, it appears that the OK button binding is
Angus ignored...
Good.
Angus I'm not a heavy user of the preamble, but one real possible
Angus problem is that we cannot resize the tabs when we resize the
Angus dialog. I can see
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus Trying this out, it appears that the OK button binding is
Angus ignored...
Good.
Angus I'm not a heavy user of the preamble, but one real possible
Angus problem is that we cannot resize the tabs when we
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I have to admit, I'm rather disenchanted with xforms at the moment for two
| reasons:
| 1. xforms development seems to have stopped (witness a grand total of 42
| emails in 10 threads to the list in 2003, all of them user questions and
| answers rather
On Wed Mar 26 2003 16:54, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have _no_ confidence that the XForms project will wake up and move
forward. IMHO as it stands now the only options is a hostile fork.
That might jolt the current XForms people a bit...
i doubt that there an incentive to do such a thing (ie
Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I have to admit, I'm rather disenchanted with xforms at the moment for
| two reasons:
| 1. xforms development seems to have stopped (witness a grand total of 42
| emails in 10 threads to the list in 2003, all of them user
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus Well given that I can't even communicate with them, I don't see
Angus how they'll ever know ;-)
Could you try to write a message to spl voicing our concerns?
I did not manage either to send messages to the list. I think it is a
separate
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus Well given that I can't even communicate with them, I don't see
Angus how they'll ever know ;-)
Could you try to write a message to spl voicing our concerns?
I have sent emails to spl and received no
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus I have sent emails to spl and received no reply. I have no idea
Angus about what is going on.
That's strnage, indeed.
I did not manage either to send messages to the list. I think it is
a separate matter and should be seen with the list
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Angus Leeming wrote:
The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends similar in
this respect. What do xforms users think?
I actually hate the new behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
want to test stuff in the preamble. And I haven't been able
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
I actually hate the new behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
want to test stuff in the preamble. And I haven't been able to find a
shortcut for opening the preamble. M-l d gives me the document layout,
but I
The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends similar in
this respect. What do xforms users think?
(Note, I haven't culled the preamble dialog yet, just given the document
dialog a preamble tab. If you like it, however, then I will remove the
preamble dialog entirely
>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends
Angus> similar in this respect. What do xforms users think?
Angus> (Note, I haven't culled the preamble dialog yet, just giv
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends
> Angus> similar in this respect. What do xforms users think?
>
> Angus> (
>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Trying this out, it appears that the OK button binding is
Angus> ignored...
Good.
Angus> I'm not a heavy user of the preamble, but one real possible
Angus> problem is that we cann
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> Trying this out, it appears that the OK button binding is
> Angus> ignored...
>
> Good.
>
> Angus> I'm not a heavy user of the pr
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I have to admit, I'm rather disenchanted with xforms at the moment for two
| reasons:
| 1. xforms development seems to have stopped (witness a grand total of 42
| emails in 10 threads to the list in 2003, all of them user questions and
| answers
On Wed Mar 26 2003 16:54, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have _no_ confidence that the XForms project will wake up and move
> forward. IMHO as it stands now the only options is a "hostile" fork.
> That might jolt the current XForms people a bit...
i doubt that there an incentive to do such a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I have to admit, I'm rather disenchanted with xforms at the moment for
> | two reasons:
> | 1. xforms development seems to have stopped (witness a grand total of 42
> | emails in 10 threads to the list in 2003, all of
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Well given that I can't even communicate with them, I don't see
Angus> how they'll ever know ;-)
Could you try to write a message to spl voicing our concerns?
I did not manage either to send messages to the list. I think it is a
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> Well given that I can't even communicate with them, I don't see
> Angus> how they'll ever know ;-)
>
> Could you try to write a message to spl voicing our concerns?
I have sent emails to spl and
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> I have sent emails to spl and received no reply. I have no idea
Angus> about what is going on.
That's strnage, indeed.
>> I did not manage either to send messages to the list. I think it is
>> a separate matter and should be seen
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Angus Leeming wrote:
> The attached patch does this making the xforms and Qt frontends similar in
> this respect. What do xforms users think?
>
I actually hate the "new" behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
want to test stuff in the preamble.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:29:40AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
> I actually hate the "new" behaviour in Qt... probably because I frequently
> want to test stuff in the preamble. And I haven't been able to find a
> shortcut for opening the preamble. "M-l d"
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars | OK to apply?
Lars Ok, but not more of these now.
I did not plan to :)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
(preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
such unknown functions. Also, it makes the EditThesaurus magically
disappear if lyx is not compiled with aiksaurus support.
I
Juergen == Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juergen Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not
implemented (preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus
frontends ignore such unknown functions. Also, it makes the
EditThesaurus
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
So it is one of the non-implemented qt dialogs?
Yes.
Will it remain unimplemented forever?
I think yes. John has mentioned some reasons which I forgot.
Any others?
No, that's all AFAICS.
Jürgen
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 06:16:13PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Will it remain unimplemented forever?
I think yes. John has mentioned some reasons which I forgot.
We're not /bin/ps !!
Any others?
No, that's all AFAICS.
right.
regards
john
--
ALL television is children's
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> | OK to apply?
Lars> Ok, but not more of these now.
I did not plan to :)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
> (preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
> such unknown functions. Also, it makes the Edit>Thesaurus magically
> disappear if lyx is not compiled with ai
>>>>> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not
>> implemented (preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus
>> fro
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So it is one of the non-implemented qt dialogs?
Yes.
> Will it remain unimplemented forever?
I think yes. John has mentioned some reasons which I forgot.
> Any others?
No, that's all AFAICS.
Jürgen
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 06:16:13PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Will it remain unimplemented forever?
>
> I think yes. John has mentioned some reasons which I forgot.
We're not /bin/ps !!
> > Any others?
>
> No, that's all AFAICS.
right.
regards
john
--
"ALL television is
This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
(preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
such unknown functions. Also, it makes the EditThesaurus magically
disappear if lyx is not compiled with aiksaurus support.
While there is a lot to do
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
| (preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
| such unknown functions. Also, it makes the EditThesaurus magically
| disappear if lyx is not compiled
This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
(preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
such unknown functions. Also, it makes the Edit>Thesaurus magically
disappear if lyx is not compiled with aiksaurus support.
While there is a lot to
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This patch allows frontends to declare which lfuns are not implemented
| (preamble and toolips for qt2) and make the menus frontends ignore
| such unknown functions. Also, it makes the Edit>Thesaurus magically
| disappear if lyx is not
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:37:26PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
$VISUAL is supposed to be the name of a $EDITOR that doesn't require a
terminal. Save some pain and just use $VISUAL instead of $EDITOR to
invoke your editor.
Ah. I did not know that. Maybe because I rarely use editors that don't need
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:37:26PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> $VISUAL is supposed to be the name of a $EDITOR that doesn't require a
> terminal. Save some pain and just use $VISUAL instead of $EDITOR to
> invoke your editor.
Ah. I did not know that. Maybe because I rarely use editors that don't
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 08:35:53AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
The preference of an external editor should be stated by setting the
EDITOR environment variale to an appropriate value. No need to re-invent
the wheel...
That's how it's
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 08:35:53AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> > > The preference of an external editor should be stated by setting the
> > > EDITOR environment variale to an appropriate value. No need to re-invent
> > > the wheel...
> >
> >
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
John wrote:
Another solution: add a method GUIruntime::isImplemented(kb_action)
that would return false for not implemented actions. Then these
would be ignored by MenuBackend. The
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 10:38:23AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John And you're going to ignore the Separator below Tooltips how ?
I'm sure that your menu frontend code ignores separators at the top or
bottom of menus, doesn't it?
I doubt it :)
But if it must, it will still
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
John> wrote:
>> Another solution: add a method GUIruntime::isImplemented(kb_action)
>> that would return false for not implemented actions. Then these
>> would be ignored by
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 10:38:23AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> John> And you're going to ignore the Separator below Tooltips how ?
>
> I'm sure that your menu frontend code ignores separators at the top or
> bottom of menus, doesn't it?
I doubt it :)
But if it must, it will still
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein
John wrote:
1) first patch to enable Layout-Preamble
John I don't think we want this. Preamble has been moved to the
John Document dialog. We need to make the menus frontend-specific
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What about the idea of disabling preamble if it is not hooked to a
signal? I can do that if someone tells me how I can test for this
condition.
What about the optitem (related to frontend) idea? Then you can disable
tooltips and child processes too, and I'm shure
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
tooltip specific issues
frontend specific issues...
Jürgen.
Juergen == Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juergen Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What about the idea of disabling preamble if it is not hooked to a
signal? I can do that if someone tells me how I can test for this
condition.
Juergen What about the optitem (related to frontend
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 8:45 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein
John wrote:
1) first patch to enable Layout-Preamble
John I don't think we want this. Preamble has been moved
On Mon Dec 9, 2002 21:04, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
Hi,
1) first patch to enable Layout-Preamble
2) second patch: to
a) eliminate a crash on Layout-Preamble-Edit-Cancel (a NULL
point er was assigned to a string)
b) adds 'xterm -e ' when calling the editor from $EDITOR
Hope
On Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:16, Edwin Leuven wrote:
On Mon Dec 9, 2002 21:04, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
Hi,
1) first patch to enable Layout-Preamble
2) second patch: to
a) eliminate a crash on Layout-Preamble-Edit-Cancel (a NULL
point er was assigned to a string)
b) adds
with.
No, I want to know whether there is a preamble dialog without actually
showing it. It is used for suppressing the menu option.
JMarc
return a bool
Angus telling the core whether the request has been dealt with.
No, I want to know whether there is a preamble dialog without actually
showing it. It is used for suppressing the menu option.
Well then, I see no alternative but to write a bunch of 1-line functions for
each frontend
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:27:08AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Well then, I see no alternative but to write a bunch of 1-line functions for
each frontend (below). If they default to true, then you'll have to overload
only a few in the respective frontends...
frontends/Dialogs.h
class
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 10:21 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:27:08AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Well then, I see no alternative but to write a bunch of 1-line functions
for each frontend (below). If they default to true, then you'll have to
overload only a few in
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Angus On Tuesday 10 December 2002 10:21 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:27:08AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Well then, I see no alternative but to write a bunch of 1-line
functions for each frontend (below). If they
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 10:47 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Angus Excellent idea. It's a major pain that adding a new dialog
Angus causes the re-compilation of the whole LyX tree.
In this case, we should also have showDialog(string const name) and
a map name-dialog of some sort.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 11:09:35AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
No. I reckon that for 1.3 you should go for the simple to code multiple
virtual bool haveXYZ() { return true; }
and overload the few cases in Qt where they decided that they don't want a
dialog.
Wouldn't it even for 1.3 be
Edwin Leuven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| redundant now (preamble is in document settings dialog). I also think the
| show preamble entry should be removed from the (qt) menu.
Or just make the QDocument::preamble pop up...
--
Lgb
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 11:10 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 11:09:35AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
No. I reckon that for 1.3 you should go for the simple to code multiple
virtual bool haveXYZ() { return true; }
and overload the few cases in Qt where they decided
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Edwin Leuven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | redundant now
Lars (preamble is in document settings dialog). I also think the |
Lars show preamble entry should be removed from the (qt) menu.
Lars Or just make the QDocument::preamble pop up
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Lars Edwin Leuven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | redundant now
| Lars (preamble is in document settings dialog). I also think the |
| Lars show preamble entry should be removed from the (qt
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 11:28:56AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Wouldn't it even for 1.3 be simpler to have the 'name' argument and an 'if'
cascade in the Qt implementation?
Whatever. It should needs implementing SOMEHOW. Two minutes to code. 10
minutes to compile on a fast machine (*). 1
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Another solution: add a method GUIruntime::isImplemented(kb_action)
that would return false for not implemented actions. Then these would
be ignored by MenuBackend. The advantage is simplicity, and
possibility to ignore
Edwin Leuven wrote:
And after sending this I contniued to read the thread: sorry (guess I am
still asleep).
Ed.
Don't worry... For sure you were not the only one... Thanks¸ Alfredo
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
1) first patch to enable Layout-Preamble
I don't think we want this. Preamble has been moved to the Document
dialog. We need to make the menus frontend-specific to remove the menu
Ah, I knew I
>>>>> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein
John> wrote:
>> 1) first patch to enable Layout->Preamble
John> I don't think we want this. Preamble has been moved to the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What about the idea of disabling preamble if it is not hooked to a
> signal? I can do that if someone tells me how I can test for this
> condition.
What about the optitem (related to frontend) idea? Then you can disable
tooltips and child processes too
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> tooltip specific issues
frontend specific issues...
Jürgen.
>>>>> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> What about the idea of disabling preamble if it is not hooked to a
>> signal? I can do that if someone tells me how I can test for this
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 8:45 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein
>
> John> wrote:
> >> 1) first pat
On Mon Dec 9, 2002 21:04, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1) first patch to enable Layout->Preamble
> 2) second patch: to
> a) eliminate a crash on Layout->Preamble->Edit->Cancel (a NULL
> point er was assigned to a string)
> b) adds 'xterm
On Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:16, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Mon Dec 9, 2002 21:04, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) first patch to enable Layout->Preamble
> > 2) second patch: to
> > a) eliminate a crash on Layout->Preamble->Edit->Cancel
us> telling the core whether the request has been dealt with.
No, I want to know whether there is a preamble dialog without actually
showing it. It is used for suppressing the menu option.
JMarc
601 - 700 of 878 matches
Mail list logo
