Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
| about these, mostly. Or else I am confusing
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| | It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| | Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Keep the enclosed LyXText somehwere else, so that parts of the
paragraph structure could be modified at will, without having to thing
about anything else.
I don't really understand how you would do that and how that would
facilitate the process, I understand however that
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Keep the enclosed LyXText somehwere else, so that parts of the
| paragraph structure could be modified at will, without having to thing
| about anything else.
|
| I don't really understand how you would do that and how
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Who are we? the inset? The inset should know nothing about any
lyxtext at all, the same way a Paragraph today knows nothing about any
lyxtext.
Well we is the inset. And yes this is a good idea and quite easy IMO
we just have to remove the DRAW functionality from the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| > It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| > Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
| > about these, mostly. Or else I am
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| > | > It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| > | > Then you have also a lyxtext in every children
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Keep the enclosed LyXText somehwere else, so that parts of the
paragraph structure could be modified at will, without having to thing
about anything else.
I don't really understand how you would do that and how that would
facilitate the process, I understand however that
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Keep the enclosed LyXText somehwere else, so that parts of the
| > paragraph structure could be modified at will, without having to thing
| > about anything else.
|
| I don't really understand how you would do that and
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Who are "we"? the inset? The inset should know nothing about any
lyxtext at all, the same way a Paragraph today knows nothing about any
lyxtext.
Well "we" is the inset. And yes this is a good idea and quite easy IMO
we just have to remove the "DRAW" functionality from
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| Please comment.
|
| If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
Just to be explicit.
It seems that either isTopLevel or isInInset can be removed.
| This
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
changes.
How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
- by having a cont bv member in lyxtext (i.e different bv for different
buffers)
- by resetting the bv * member in all
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
changes.
How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
- by having a cont bv member in lyxtext (i.e different bv for different
buffers)
- by
Juergen Vigna wrote:
We will need 1 LyXText for every BufferView! Hope that answers all
your questions above ;)
Jürgen
It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
about these,
Alfredo Braunstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
| changes.
|
| How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
No. This patch completely punt on that issue.
(So copy paste
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
| changes.
| How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
| - by having a cont bv member in lyxtext
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I am not sure that it cleans up a lot, but I guess it is a bit saner
anyway.
I'd guess so, too. At least it looks nicer.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
It seems that either isTopLevel or isInInset can be removed.
OK, I think isTopLevel should go then
regards
john
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| Please comment.
|
| If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
|
| This seems dubious to me, look at RowPainter::paintFirst() - if bv_owner
| was always
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
about these, mostly. Or else I am confusing something ;)
InsetText already has support for multiple BufferViews (while other
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
| about these, mostly. Or else I am confusing something ;)
|
| InsetText
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Please comment.
|
| If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
Just to be explicit.
It seems that either isTopLevel or isInInset can be removed.
|
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
> changes.
How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
- by having a cont bv member in lyxtext (i.e different bv for different
buffers)
- by resetting the bv * member in all
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
changes.
How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
- by having a cont bv member in lyxtext (i.e different bv for different
buffers)
- by
Juergen Vigna wrote:
> We will need 1 LyXText for every BufferView! Hope that answers all
> your questions above ;)
>
>Jürgen
>
It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
about these,
Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
| > changes.
|
| How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
No. This patch completely punt on that issue.
(So copy
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| >>I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
| >>changes.
| > How the multiple bv will be adressed (or is it already in the patch?)
| > - by having a cont bv member
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I am not sure that it cleans up a lot, but I guess it is a bit saner
> anyway.
I'd guess so, too. At least it looks nicer.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> It seems that either isTopLevel or isInInset can be removed.
OK, I think isTopLevel should go then
regards
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Please comment.
|
| If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
|
| This seems dubious to me, look at RowPainter::paintFirst() - if bv_owner
| was
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
about these, mostly. Or else I am confusing something ;)
InsetText already has support for multiple BufferViews (while other
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
| > It doesn't. You need 1 _top_ lyxtext for every bv (and there is already).
| > Then you have also a lyxtext in every children insettext... I'm talking
| > about these, mostly. Or else I am confusing something ;)
|
|
I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
changes.
I am not sure that it cleans up a lot, but I guess it is a bit saner
anyway.
There shouldn't bee too many ws only chunks in this patch, but there
might be some.
Please comment.
(I had to zip this... size unzipped
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
Please comment.
If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
This seems dubious to me, look at RowPainter::paintFirst() - if bv_owner
was always set, then we'd get the top margin at the top of every
I have a patch ready (that seems to work) that does 99.9% of these
changes.
I am not sure that it cleans up a lot, but I guess it is a bit saner
anyway.
There shouldn't bee too many "ws only" chunks in this patch, but there
might be some.
Please comment.
(I had to zip this... size unzipped
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:54:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Please comment.
If bv_owner is always != 0, what is the isTopLevel() test all about ?
This seems dubious to me, look at RowPainter::paintFirst() - if bv_owner
was always set, then we'd get the top margin at the top of every
36 matches
Mail list logo
