On 7 Dec 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | also I personally would like to see a re-organisation of the lyxfunc code
> | to be more organised, as I briefly mentioned earlier. This would also be a
> | great oppportunity for me to learn some more advan
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| also I personally would like to see a re-organisation of the lyxfunc code
| to be more organised, as I briefly mentioned earlier. This would also be a
| great oppportunity for me to learn some more advanced C++ ;)
Yes, please. If not for anything else tha
On 4 Dec 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Asger> If you by infrastructure mean the model abstraction, yes, this
> Asger> will be easy. But once again, you basically just shove
> Asger> complexity into the front-ends:
> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Asger> Therefore, I must retract the argument that GUII will make the
Asger> model more basic, since obviously it isn't for the dialogs and
Asger> the menus.
Thanks :)
Asger> If you by infrastructure mean the model abstraction
> I'm not sure what we gain with that. The problems which exist in some
> architectures (e.g. how do you update a dynamic menu when it is teared off)
> will continue to exist anyway. If you find a good solution for a
> frontend, I am sure it will work with the current scheme.
The only problem of
On 28 Nov 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Nope. We have several things the provide dynamic menus:
I'm glad that the menu model in LyX is more complete than I thought.
Congratulations on some good work there.
Therefore, I must retract the argument that GUII will make the model more
basic, si
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Yes but we still have the toolbarbackend as a global variable.
It should probably be a member of LyXGUI or LyXView (I'm not clear
about what is the role of these different classes).
Lars> Agree. And I belive that the location
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You just mean that the common code should not be named "backend"?
| Well, it's called MenuDesc right now, so it should be OK :)
With "backend" I mean the core LyX structures.
| Lars> Let's imagine a lyx-server-only port. Why should the
| Lars>
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> I really think that this code has nothing to do in the
Lars> "backend", imho it is part of the frontend, if it is directly in
Lars> the tk code or in the common frontend code does not concern me
Lars> as much.
You just mean th
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> I have been thinking of moving _all_ toolbar/menu stuff into the
| Lars> GUI and have _no_ backend support. This will allow the Tk to use
| Lars> whatever method/scheme it
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> I have been thinking of moving _all_ toolbar/menu stuff into the
Lars> GUI and have _no_ backend support. This will allow the Tk to use
Lars> whatever method/scheme it sees at the best for its implementaion
Lars> of toolbars an
> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Asger> In parenthesis, we should add that this has been accomplished
Asger> by defining a minimum feature set: We cut out the dynamic part
Asger> of the menus that existed previously (i.e. LinuxDoc adaption),
Asger> and focused
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But it only demonstrates what Matthias already said: We are closer to
| the lowest common standard, rather than closer to the possible
| standard.
| For instance, there is no functionality to handle dynamic menus, in the
| sense of menus t
On 28 Nov 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Menus and toolbars are read at startup already. It would be better to
> change them on the fly, but this should be doable.
I know the menus and toolbars exist as data structures (after all, we
started this together in Italy), and therefore, it's rela
> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Vigna writes:
Jürgen> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hello there, I've been reading this thread when it was nearly over,
>> so all the technical points have been taken. Since I am not g
> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Asger> I knew you wouldn't do this, so I have to bring out some
Asger> heavier ammo: The menus and toolbars. These, you are beginning
Asger> to tackle, but you haven't quite yet.
The current communication model is broken, but
> My advice is clear: Small steps. The first step is model/view separation
> for one toolkit. Honestly, I doubt that you can handle even that
> task. But please: Don't try to do the big one in one go, or you'll end up
> with a new 1.1.x.
Well I can reassure you on that front. We plan to do no
On 24 Nov 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | You have to distuingish between GUII and model/view separation.
>
> I really do not see the difference between mvs and guii when only one
> toolkit is supported, except that with only one t
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 05:29:20PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Matthias" == Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I've been reading this thread when it was nearly over, so all the
> technical points have been taken. Since I am not going to do that
> again, I'll restrict
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> "Matthias" == Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hello there,
>I've been reading this thread when it was nearly over, so all the
>technical points have been taken. Since I am not going to do that
>again, I'll restrict myself to the
> "Matthias" == Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello there,
I've been reading this thread when it was nearly over, so all the
technical points have been taken. Since I am not going to do that
again, I'll restrict myself to the subjective part :)
Matthias> Of course. Restrictin
> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Asger> Would you be still be enthusiastic to participate in LyX
Asger> development if GUII was dropped and focus was on Qt as the main
Asger> toolkit?
NO!
But I don't know what I would have said before reading Matthias'
messag
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 02:52:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> Fast, flexible development comes from a stable source base not from
[...]
...and well-written, well-commented source. Let's not forget that.
> Forking a KLyX, a GLyX and a CursesLyX won't make it quicker and easier to
> develop LyX
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 02:52:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
>
> P.S. I've spent so much time writing this that I'm inclinded to just
> include it word for word in the next issue of LDN rather than just link to
> to it. Do you have a problem with me doing that? Do you want your quotes
> remov
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Let me repeat in this context, what I just wrote to Allan:
|
| You have to distuingish between GUII and model/view separation.
|
| You achieve the long-time stability, and avoidance of "death of
| entropy" with basic model/view separatio
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> Dear Allan,
>
> Let me try to summarize some of your points:
>
> 1) Being independent is better, since you'll potentially last longer in
>a changing environment
> 2) Different GUI frontends cr
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Therefore it is relevant informally to ask all the developers:
>Would you be still be enthusiastic to participate in LyX development if
>GUII was dropped and focus was on Qt as the main toolkit?
Well my answer is: NO! (I love short mails ;)
Jür
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I've kept everybody waiting long enough...
>It's a long reply... really long but then you wouldn't believe I wrote it
>if it was short. I think I covered everything.
You got me and I really expected something like this from you (and I thought Asge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At this point, LyX development is less need-driven than ever.
> The developers also do not do the work because they want more
> respect of users. The existing users crowd is already enthuisiatic,
> and it does not matter whether there are 100,000 users or
> 1,
On Thursday 23 November 2000 12:35, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Indirectly, you acknowledge that Matthias is right about one thing:
>
> GUII takes a long time.
>
> The basic question then remains: Is GUII worth it?
>
> Please distinguish between GUII and model/view separation. These thin
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Would you be still be enthusiastic to participate in LyX development if
> GUII was dropped and focus was on Qt as the main toolkit?
>
> Greets,
>
> Asger
It seems to me that the implemented framework is a reasonable method for
providing ex
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> As one who is actually more concerned with this user focus than with the
> code, I still have to say that I can understand it. I can see that
> writing excellent code is laying the basis for developing an excellent
> application. That's why I very much
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
Dear Allan,
Let me try to summarize some of your points:
1) Being independent is better, since you'll potentially last longer in
a changing environment
2) Different GUI frontends creates competition, and thus more innovation
3) Different frontends attra
On 22 Nov 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> - the NEW_INSET code that you mentioned. (lot still missing,
> itemize/enumerate is still hardcoded, insetfloat needs some work ...)
> - the restructureing of internal storage formats (from implicit home
> grown linked list to std::containers) And
I've kept everybody waiting long enough...
It's a long reply... really long but then you wouldn't believe I wrote it
if it was short. I think I covered everything.
Glossary.
GUII = GUI Independence.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> >
> > Because the current GUI-I code is limited
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Technology Committee of AGU. I hope to be able to work on getting LaTeX
| more accepted within the AGU community (it is already, but people
| complain the lack of easy visual tools ;-), and especially to make the
| AGU LaTeX classes as augmented by Pa
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 01:18:19PM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
...
> I think I can answer some of it for you:
>
> Some developers are not mainly interested in bringing a modern
> application to the users. It's more fun to play around with a
> code, learn C++ some more, clean u
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I was never angry about the KDE port you did. I even considered branching
| with you.
I was never angry about the _port_, I was angry about the lack of
communication!
| Now, the situation is different. I think it is more realistic to sw
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> Maybe you'll change mind and will be able to convince Lars and Asger :)
I was never angry about the KDE port you did. I even considered branching
with you.
The only reason that I didn't jump aboard that branch was that the other
LyX developers wou
Hi, Matthias.
I've been reading this discussion with interest. As one of the guys doing
this coding, I feel it has some relevance to me!!
The only point I don't understand is why you believe the GUI-Independence
stuff is limiting? The LyX kernel knows nothing about the GUI. It just emits
a fe
> According to the latest surveys, the vast majority of linux users has
> machines with more than 300 Mhz and at least 64MB ram.
My personal survey gives an 486DX2-66/16 MB (and LyX 0.10 ;-)), and a
P133/48MB at home where I do most of my writing and at work a P100/64, a
P133/32, a PII350/512 an
Friday 17 November 2000 21:11 wrote John Levon:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
[snip]
> True, but then you lose the KDE2 added bonuses. I'm sure *you* are aware
> of that :)
>
> I'm not averse to a pure-Qt port, but personally I'm not interested in
> it ...
In KDE2, pure Qt and KD
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> Note that I didn't do anything with this code for months. Just sending a
> short note "we wrote something, do something with it or leave it", isn't
> sufficient. It was clear to me that I will have to spend some time arguing
> with you people at l
Friday 17 November 2000 18:06 wrote John Levon:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> > sorry for not sending this email ealier. Mandrake is innocent
>
> OK
>
> > During the KOffice Meeting after the Linux Tag two months ago,
> > [...]
> > Unfortunatly, neither he nor me had the time to
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> sorry for not sending this email ealier. Mandrake is innocent
OK
> During the KOffice Meeting after the Linux Tag two months ago,
> [...]
> Unfortunatly, neither he nor me had the time to finish the things we planned.
> Too many things happened w
Lars,
I send this to you as I'm not on qt-devel. Can you please forward it to the
appropriate mailing list?
Thanks.
Matthias
> -- Forwarded Message --
> Subject: Re: Mandrake and KDe frontend
> Date: 16 Nov 2000 21:17:59 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønne
46 matches
Mail list logo
