On 12-Jun-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| Well the frontend doesn't have to implement the progression bar I did
>| the same in my KMameRun (KDE1-M.A.M.E frontend) and you just have to
>| update the progression bar between one word and the other, wouldn't we?
>|
>| Without the need of a signa
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> > You could be... and we have a prograssion bar in the dialog... this
> > should also be done with a signal (because then the frontend wont have
> > to implement the progression bar at all)
>
> Well the frontend doesn't have to implement the progression
john jabbered,
>1.Larry's being a curmudgeon again. :)
Gee, i grinned when I saw this from the only other person who wanted to
get "low grade moron" into the license :)
hey, wait a minute--what's wrong with curmudgeons???
hawk
--
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. /"\
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:37:24PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> You started this thread to reach this point didn't you? :-)
ha ha :)
Yes Allan we all set up this fake flamewar to goad you into doing
the history stuff :))
john
--
"Please let's not resume the argument with the usual whining about
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Incidentally, I'd say that the "Start Spellchecking" is "Apply" by a
| > different name. That's just button labels.
|
| Do we need a "Start SpellC" button anyway? In kde, after running the
| spellchecker it jumps automatically to the firstmisspelled
On Tuesday 12 June 2001 15:50, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Incidentally, I'd say that the "Start Spellchecking" is "Apply" by a
> > different name. That's just button labels.
>
> Do we need a "Start SpellC" button anyway? In kde, after running the
> spellchecker it jumps automatically to the firstmi
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Well whatever IMO the easiest (and fastes) solution for now is just use
| #ifdef statements. If you want to use dl and load dynamic libaries
| and configure this all now so that Edwin can work with it, why not. When
| you are at it you could also dynami
> Incidentally, I'd say that the "Start Spellchecking" is "Apply" by a
> different name. That's just button labels.
Do we need a "Start SpellC" button anyway? In kde, after running the
spellchecker it jumps automatically to the firstmisspelled word. This is what
we want right?
gr.ed.
On 12-Jun-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| Well Edwin this probably won't work anyway. We have to use PREPROCESSOR
>| #ifdef/#else/#endif stuff to handle this. Why? Because if you don't want
>| pspell you shouldn't have it in the code otherwise it won't work. You
>| hopefully understand what I
On Tuesday 12 June 2001 14:48, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 12-Jun-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Edwin, you're talking about a controller/view split of the Spellchecker.
> [snip Class definition]
>
> Well more or less. Only that we don't have an Apply/Ok behaviour.
> We have more Buttons which h
On 12-Jun-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
> Edwin, you're talking about a controller/view split of the Spellchecker.
[snip Class definition]
Well more or less. Only that we don't have an Apply/Ok behaviour.
We have more Buttons which have to raise an action. While we are
checking the only allowed sig
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 12-Jun-2001 Edwin Leuven wrote:
|
| > While we are at it. I am having some scarce free moments again in which I am
| > looking at the spellcheck code.
|
| Good!
|
| > What I was thinking was to have something like the following (watch out, a
| >
> 4. Update dialog
> 5. Stop: listen to dialog
> Your help is greatly appreciated.
>
> Greets, Edwin.
>
> ps. is it Friday yet? ;-)
;-)
Edwin, you're talking about a controller/view split of the Spellchecker.
class ControlSpellChecker {
private:
ViewBase * view_;
SpellChecker
On 12-Jun-2001 Edwin Leuven wrote:
> While we are at it. I am having some scarce free moments again in which I am
> looking at the spellcheck code.
Good!
> What I was thinking was to have something like the following (watch out, a
> flow of consciousness of a c++ beginner follows!):
[snip cl
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| While we are at it. I am having some scarce free moments again in which I am
| looking at the spellcheck code.
|
| What I was thinking was to have something like the following (watch out, a
| flow of consciousness of a c++ beginner follows!):
|
| A b
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
larry> [...]
Why are you all having fun discussions when I am away? Now, you have
taken all the valid points I might have made, I'm frustrated :)
Larry, just one point (which has already been made, I know): LyX 1.0.x
codebase is _ugly_. Most o
> We want GUII _even_ if xforms is the only toolkit. Why? Cleaner code! And
> something that is maintainable.
This smells like cognitive dissonance to me.
Personally I would like cleaner, maintainable code + modern toolkit. Which of
course does not imply GUII *in the sense that lyx implements
> Whether or not any member of The LyX Team is specifically supporting a
> port to Windows, GUII might, to some, seem related to Windows support.
> The benefits for the Unixes, where modern X-server oriented toolkits are
> pretty well cross-platform, are not immediately obvious.
Larry, just look
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 06:40:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > Hmm this was also one thing that bugged me... We, The LyX Team, have
> > so far had/done _no_ efforts to provide the Windows port. All testing
> > and support has been done o
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > - Forwarded message from Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >
> > Now imagine having LyX on Windows. All these people would be happy and
> > there is quite a few of them. Add to that group potential users from non
> > scientific commun
Several things crossed my mind as I read Larry's original email:
1.Larry's being a curmudgeon again. :)
2. Larry cleary is confused about what GUII is and what it's for.
3. I really ought to point out a few things about code review in my
response to this.
4. Actually, I'm surprised L
Dear Larry,
> Wading through the archives in search of rationale for these and other
> decisions is probably not a realistic option for most people who might
> want to take a look at this effort and its future.
Those ethical people should follow the LyX Development news:
http://www.lyx.org/news
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:45:24PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Some of the answers that might have been given:
>
> - Look at messages <.> in the mailing list archives
>
> - GUII contributes a lot to the general cleanup, thus makes LyX more stable
> and easier maintainable in the long ru
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 06:40:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Hmm this was also one thing that bugged me... We, The LyX Team, have
> so far had/done _no_ efforts to provide the Windows port. All testing
> and support has been done outside of core team.
> The Windows port is just a bonu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| It was also, by the way, in direct response to an expressed "who cares"
| attitude about the implications for the Unixes of diverting resources to
| "X-server independence" for a Windows port.
Hmm this was also one thing that bugged me... We, The LyX Team, have
so far
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Yes, I have felt obliged to raise questions about LyX's future and
| the choices that have been, and are continuing to be be made by
| participating developers. Personally, I consider LyX to be the premiere
| project in the history of open source, and so my concerns a
You took my statement completely out of context.
I made this statement only after careful discussion over several e-mails
of the fact that it is *NOT* clear -- at least to me -- whether xforms
is, in fact weighing down LyX in this way. And after reference to a few
claims by others that it may be
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:28:36PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> In all your "questions" and statements so far you make _a lot_ of
> false assumptions, resulting in coming of as offensive towards the
> people doing the actual work.
I believe my questions have been fairly stated as questions
I hate jumping into the middle of something that doesn't really affect
me, but I figure I can provide an outsider's view.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:12:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Juergen, "if" means "if", which is to pose a question as I understand
> the language. I was not making a
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I wonder why anyone feels offended at all.
It is the way the questions were asked, not the questions in them
selves.
| First of all, it was Friday (or almost Friday), second, a lot of noise
| could have been prevented, if anybody would have pointed t
> | Jeez. This kind of language is not what I expected from this list. I
> | guess I was wrong to expect civil discussion. Frankly, this is not
> | the list it used to be.
>
> What kind of language?
>
> In all your "questions" and statements so far you make _a lot_ of
> false assumptions, res
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| While I am thankful for your effort, I would hope you don't want
| my appreciation in the form of silence when I have questions.
Then Please ask nice questions!
(critique is good, don't get me wrong, but before you can give
critisism you have to have your facts strai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Jeez. This kind of language is not what I expected from this list. I
| guess I was wrong to expect civil discussion. Frankly, this is not
| the list it used to be.
What kind of language?
In all your "questions" and statements so far you make _a lot_ of
false assum
While I am thankful for your effort, I would hope you don't want
my appreciation in the form of silence when I have questions.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:07:43AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> P.S.: And I did realize the ERT inset for you Larry, didn't I #:O)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Juergen, "if" means "if", which is to pose a question as I understand
| the language. I was not making a statement of fact here.
come on... that was no question, at least not a real one. If you
really wondered you would have written:
'Are the "insets" and tabular
Jeez. This kind of language is not what I expected from this list. I
guess I was wrong to expect civil discussion. Frankly, this is not
the list it used to be.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:28:50PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Get over it ...
> Secondly, you can't force people to wo
On 11-Jun-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Juergen, "if" means "if", which is to pose a question as I understand
> the language. I was not making a statement of fact here.
Well sorry that I'm no native speaking english-man and sometimes just
don't undersand what someone else understands. But t
Juergen, "if" means "if", which is to pose a question as I understand
the language. I was not making a statement of fact here.
While I appreciate someone filling out the picture, you could show more
civility than to say that someone asking a question is "completely
wrong".
On Mon, Jun 11, 200
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My concern is more that many of the ridiculous quests relate to support
> for an out-of-date toolkit or, lord help us, GUII.
Not much time is wasted on maintaining the XForms port. Why? Because
XForms changes so slowly ;-)
> Aren't these distractio
On 10-Jun-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The struggling of the "insets" and tabular efforts
> disturbs me, particularly if it's related to the choice of toolkits or
> the GUII movement.
Sorry Larry you're completely wrong here. "insets" especially tabular
efforts are completely cut off from
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I would prefer Allan to work on lyx/bufferview GUIIsation too, but you can't
| force him to do so.
I guess this will be mostly my job, since I did most of the LyXView,
BufferView in the first place.
| this is just totally stupid and a waste of everyone's
On 10-Jun-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I haven't meant to say that GUII *has* harmed LyX for certain. But if
> it has not, it certainly could, if staying with xforms or GUII itself is
> prompting significant work that is otherwise avoidable.
>
> It is important to note that a lot of time is
My concern is more that many of the ridiculous quests relate to support
for an out-of-date toolkit or, lord help us, GUII.
Aren't these distractions interrelated?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 07:59:57PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:04:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> then, I believe, it is a tragic, even unethical choice.
/now/ I am pissed off. "Unethical" ? It is only because this is a family
mailing list
john
--
"Someone turn off the good idea tap; we're drowning here!"
-
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - resources wasted on a ridiculous quest for GUII
We waste resources on a lot of other ridiculous quests.
I'm surprised you are only bitching about the GUII stuff.
Come on, you can do better.
Greets,
Asger
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 03:44:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> I suppose I should make it clear that IMHO Larry has some very good
> points. I just don't see the point in another debate that will change
> nothing.
>
> And I don't agree with him on everything; in particular, the GUII work
> so far
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:31:05AM +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> Why does it matter to you to use KDE and not Xforms? What is so
> pressing, so important that the GUI will be done in some other toolkit
> now and not in XForms?
If you are attributing a preference to KDE to me, you're mistaken.
I
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
> First: I must be mad to answer this question. Believe me... :-)
>
> Second: Larry objection has a base, we talk about GUII for years and we
> don't have a working basis, yet. Also, for those who remember Larry pr
FWIW, I understand the criticism, I don't like XForms too much myself
but installing f.ex. KDE instead is just too much just to have kde-LyX
At least XForms is small as opposed to one of the giants that could
replace it. I'm well aware that we can do just Qt but then we still have
some layer or
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 09:31:05AM +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> Why does it matter to you to use KDE and not Xforms? What is so
> pressing, so important that the GUI will be done in some other toolkit
> now and not in XForms?
First: I must be mad to answer this question. Believe me... :-)
* Garst R. Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010610 08:11]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The bottom line is that, by the time this GUII path of development
> >
> > So why exactly should we slow the development of Unix LyX to a crawl
> > to chase a wild goose?
> Try: because it's fun.
> becau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The bottom line is that, by the time this GUII path of development
>
> So why exactly should we slow the development of Unix LyX to a crawl
> to chase a wild goose?
Try: because it's fun.
because it's interesting.
because the bottom line is too boring.
> - Forwarded message from Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> Now imagine having LyX on Windows. All these people would be happy and
> there is quite a few of them. Add to that group potential users from non
> scientific community, say writers, who want to have a nice interface fo
I forgot to CC to list. Here it is.
- Forwarded message from Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:13:48 -0400
From: Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: when lyx say bye bye to xforms?
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 10:00:01PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > this is just totally stupid and a waste of everyone's time.
>
> what is? ;-)
going over the same old ground again ;)
> > unless someone actually steps up with some actual code that is.
>
> I am afraid that this discussion will
> I would prefer Allan to work on lyx/bufferview GUIIsation too, but you
> can't force him to do so.
me to, but that wasn't *exactly* my point.
> this is just totally stupid and a waste of everyone's time.
what is? ;-)
> can't we just drop it ? please ?
> unless someone actually steps up with
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 09:35:23PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> decision. We don't want to talk about it any more. In fact, our
> emailcontroller does not support this mode of conversation. But we are
> working on it...it will be there...one day...for sure...
edwin, as a bona fide developer, y
Larry is of course completely wrong. It's quite obvious: qt is an easy to
use, gpl'ed, c++ widget set with a dialog designer, localisation tool, xml
libraries, sophisticated table widgets, slots and signals, etc. It would be
completely outrageous to replace xforms with qt. We've got a much bett
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 09:49:16PM +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
> Well, the developers seem to be holding the opinion that GUI
> independence is a good idea, and since we hold the steering wheel, we
> have the last say. I don't mean it in the dictatorial way ...
At least you have offered some amus
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010609 21:22]:
> Some of us recall wistfully the adaption of a 1.0 vintage LyX from
> xforms to QT in "a week" (or some other ridiculously short period of
> time, was the claim) by one of the original core developers and, if I
> recall correctly, one other
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 06:56:53PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> > I can't help but wonder whether GUI "independence" is a worthwhile
> > goal, verses the selection of an alternative toolkit, warts and all.
>
> I suggest you go back, and read approximately 3-4000 messages on this topic.
> I'm not
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 10:48:02AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some of us recall wistfully the adaption of a 1.0 vintage LyX from
> xforms to QT in "a week" (or some other ridiculously short period of
> time, was the claim) by one of the original core developers and, if I
> recall correctly
Some of us recall wistfully the adaption of a 1.0 vintage LyX from
xforms to QT in "a week" (or some other ridiculously short period of
time, was the claim) by one of the original core developers and, if I
recall correctly, one other gentleman.
I can't help but wonder whether GUI "independence" i
63 matches
Mail list logo
