On 2017-01-29, Georg Baum wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> ... There may be issues with documents containing literal Unicode
>> dashes: these may now have different line breaks.
> If this is an issue then it was already an issue when format 481 was
> introduced (because we changed -- to U+2013
On 2017-02-28, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:39:25PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> >> > At this point we have two simple alternatives. Either the above one or
>> >> >
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:39:25PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:18:50PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original
>
On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:18:50PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> >> >> Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original problem
>> >> >> in this thread. I think that the patch Günther proposed on
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:18:50PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:55:43PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-02-26, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> >> > Le 25/02/2017 à 21:09, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>
> >> >> Then, a
On 2017-02-27, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:55:43PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-02-26, Guillaume Munch wrote:
>> > Le 25/02/2017 à 21:09, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>> >> Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original problem
>> >> in this
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:55:43PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-02-26, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> > Le 25/02/2017 à 21:09, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>
> >> Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original problem
> >> in this thread. I think that the patch Günther proposed
On 2017-02-26, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 25/02/2017 à 21:09, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>> Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original problem
>> in this thread. I think that the patch Günther proposed on Jan. 25 is
>> the less controversial one.
> I think you mean
>
Le 25/02/2017 à 21:09, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
Then, a decision has to still be taken as regards the original problem
in this thread. I think that the patch Günther proposed on Jan. 25 is
the less controversial one.
I think you mean
On 02/25/2017 03:16 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote:
>
>>
>> ../../../../src/frontends/qt4/GuiViewSource.cpp: In member function
>> ‘void lyx::frontend::ViewSourceWidget::realUpdateView()’:
>> ../../../../src/frontends/qt4/GuiViewSource.cpp:229:14: error:
>> ambiguous overload for ‘operator!=’ (operand
../../../../src/frontends/qt4/GuiViewSource.cpp: In member function ‘void
lyx::frontend::ViewSourceWidget::realUpdateView()’:
../../../../src/frontends/qt4/GuiViewSource.cpp:229:14: error: ambiguous
overload for ‘operator!=’ (operand types are ‘const QChar’ and ‘char’)
while (*oc != '\0'
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:37:18PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 02/25/2017 08:22 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:11:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:50:21PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
On 02/25/2017 08:22 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:11:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:50:21PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:11:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:50:21PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:11:12PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> >>
Guenter Milde wrote:
> Not "perfect" (but maybe "satisfactory"): There may be issues with
> documents containing literal Unicode dashes: these may now have different
> line breaks.
If this is an issue then it was already an issue when format 481 was
introduced (because we changed -- to U+2013
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> This seems to have been done on purpose. But I don't understand why.
> The attached patch corrects this glitch and I am going to commit it
> because I really don't see any rationale behind this behavior.
This is part of the code that tried to make the input of
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/01/2017 à 23:57, Richard Heck a écrit :
>> I agree with Enrico that we should revert to the previous behavior. What
>> we could also do, though, is provide SOME easy way (a shortcut?) for
>> people to insert \textemdash, if that is what they want to do.
>>
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/01/2017 à 23:57, Richard Heck a écrit :
>> I agree with Enrico that we should revert to the previous behavior. What
>> we could also do, though, is provide SOME easy way (a shortcut?) for
>> people to insert \textemdash, if that is what they want to do.
>>
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:50:21PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:11:12PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> >> >
Le 25/01/2017 à 22:51, Guenter Milde a écrit :
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
The appearance on screen is the same but we always output "--" and
"---", except on text exports where the unicode characters are output.
This should ensure maximum compatibility without cluttering the
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:51:33PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> I recommend the lib/unicodesymbols patch below as simple fix for the line
>> wrapping problem.
> Does not work with xetex as lib/unicodesymbols seems to be ignored.
However, the line
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:51:33PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> I recommend the lib/unicodesymbols patch below as simple fix for the line
> wrapping problem.
Does not work with xetex as lib/unicodesymbols seems to be ignored.
--
Enrico
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> I think the attached is all is needed here to please everyone.
> The appearance on screen is the same but we always output "--" and
> "---", except on text exports where the unicode characters are output.
> This should ensure maximum compatibility without
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:50:21PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:11:12PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> >
On 2017-01-25, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:11:12PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> > On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:07:47PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> >> >
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:11:12PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >
> > >> Below is an incomplete patch (see FIXME).
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:33:41PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 12:25 PM, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > On 2017-01-24, Richard Heck wrote:
> >> On 01/24/2017 05:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/01/2017
On 01/25/2017 12:25 PM, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 01/24/2017 05:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 24/01/2017 à 23:07, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> The first two that come to
On 2017-01-24, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/24/2017 05:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> Le 24/01/2017 à 23:07, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
The first two that come to mind are xypic and tikz. As regards xypic,
in
On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> > ... However, I am more radical and would like that the automatic
>> >
Le 24/01/2017 à 23:57, Richard Heck a écrit :
I agree with Enrico that we should revert to the previous behavior. What
we could also do, though, is provide SOME easy way (a shortcut?) for
people to insert \textemdash, if that is what they want to do.
Alternatively (yes, I know it is a terrible
On 01/24/2017 05:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Le 24/01/2017 à 23:07, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>>> The first two that come to mind are xypic and tikz. As regards xypic,
>>> in lyx 2.1 you could write a code fragment,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/01/2017 à 23:07, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > The first two that come to mind are xypic and tikz. As regards xypic,
> > in lyx 2.1 you could write a code fragment, select it and then hit
> > Ctrl-M to have it nicely
Le 24/01/2017 à 23:07, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
The first two that come to mind are xypic and tikz. As regards xypic,
in lyx 2.1 you could write a code fragment, select it and then hit
Ctrl-M to have it nicely previewed. Now no more.
You mean that hitting Ctrl-M before writing the code
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> The first two that come to mind are xypic and tikz. As regards xypic,
> in lyx 2.1 you could write a code fragment, select it and then hit
> Ctrl-M to have it nicely previewed. Now no more.
:(
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:35:27PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/01/2017 à 21:11, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > But packages that expect to see two hyphens instead of \textendash
> > are not broken...
>
> Out of curiosity: what packages are these?
The first two that come to mind
Le 24/01/2017 à 21:11, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
But packages that expect to see two hyphens instead of \textendash
are not broken...
Out of curiosity: what packages are these?
JMarc
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:00:02PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> >> Below is an incomplete patch (see FIXME).
> >> Could someone with more C++ knowledge complete and test, please?
>
> >
On 2017-01-24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> Below is an incomplete patch (see FIXME).
>> Could someone with more C++ knowledge complete and test, please?
> This would be a step forward. However, I am more radical and would like
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:14:39PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> Below is an incomplete patch (see FIXME).
> Could someone with more C++ knowledge complete and test, please?
This would be a step forward. However, I am more radical and would like
that the automatic transformation of -- and ---
On 2017-01-17, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:41:03AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>>> > On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>>> > > Am Montag, den
On 2017-01-17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:41:03AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>> > On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> > > Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
Am Dienstag, den 17.01.2017, 18:40 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
> c) use "---" in lib/unicodesymbols and
> procede as in a) for inputencoding utf8
+1
Jürgen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:41:03AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> > On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > > Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
> > >> Now we have 3 specs:
> > >>
> > >>
On 2017-01-17, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
>>> Now we have 3 specs:
>>> 1. Unicode: Break Opportunity Before and After
>>> 2. --- ligature: Break opportunity after, no hyphenation of
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:41:03AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
> >> Now we have 3 specs:
> >>
> >> 1. Unicode: Break Opportunity Before and After
> >>
> >> 2. --- ligature: Break
On 01/17/2017 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
>> Now we have 3 specs:
>>
>> 1. Unicode: Break Opportunity Before and After
>>
>> 2. --- ligature: Break opportunity after, no hyphenation of word
>> before
>>(also with literal
Am Montag, den 16.01.2017, 22:17 + schrieb Guenter Milde:
> Now we have 3 specs:
>
> 1. Unicode: Break Opportunity Before and After
>
> 2. --- ligature: Break opportunity after, no hyphenation of word
> before
> (also with literal EM DASH and \textemdash macro with non-TeX
> fonts).
>
On 2017-01-14, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-01-14, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Am Freitag, den 13.01.2017, 18:56 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck:
>>> The attached files illustrate a problem that I raised, and was told
>>> not to worry about, when "---" was exchanged for \textemdash. The
>>> problem
On 2017-01-14, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 13.01.2017, 18:56 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck:
>> The attached files illustrate a problem that I raised, and was told
>> not to worry about, when "---" was exchanged for \textemdash. The
>> problem is that the latter does not break the way
Am Freitag, den 13.01.2017, 18:56 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck:
> The attached files illustrate a problem that I raised, and was told
> not
> to worry about, when "---" was exchanged for \textemdash. The problem
> is
> that the latter does not break the way the former does. What can we
> do
> about
The attached files illustrate a problem that I raised, and was told not
to worry about, when "---" was exchanged for \textemdash. The problem is
that the latter does not break the way the former does. What can we do
about this. It's very annoying. (Note that this file is format 530 from
latest
53 matches
Mail list logo
