On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
the possibility to get the previous word automatically into the index
inset. But I suspect there's a trick even for that if we go this way.
The
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
the possibility to get the previous word automatically into the index
inset. But I suspect there's a trick even for that if
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:19:55 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
the possibility to get the previous
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:19:55 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
the possibility to get the previous
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
> the possibility to get the previous word automatically into the index
> inset. But I suspect there's a trick even for that if we go this way.
>
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
the possibility to get the previous word automatically into the index
inset. But I suspect there's a trick even for that if
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:19:55 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
> > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
> >> the possibility to
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:19:55 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 +0300
> > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The attached does this experimentally. It looks good... what we lose is
> >> the possibility to