On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Steven van Dijk wrote:
If you port using the Cygwin library, you DO have an Ansi-standard,
Posix-compliant interface. Only the GUI would be really native and it can
True. I was only speaking about my experiences using Micro$oft native
compilers.
--
On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Steven van Dijk wrote:
> If you port using the Cygwin library, you DO have an Ansi-standard,
> Posix-compliant interface. Only the GUI would be really native and it can
True. I was only speaking about my experiences using Micro$oft native
compilers.
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
John Weiss blathered:
This is, as I understand it, the main problem with WxWin. The code is
bloated: it's a library/GUI toolkit implemented *on* *top* *of* other
toolkits, libraries, and GUI's. Nope, sorry,
At 09:48 AM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
3) WinNT and its C++ comiplers are a fragrant, steaming, fetid mount
of feces.
Agreed, but...
The compiles on NT are slower. The compiler has all
sorts of shit-for-brains "Microsoft extensions" that deviate from
the ANSI standard. The OS
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, John Weiss wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
John Weiss blathered:
This is, as I understand it, the main problem with WxWin. The code is
bloated: it's a library/GUI toolkit implemented *on* *top* *of* other
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> John Weiss blathered:
>
> > This is, as I understand it, the main problem with WxWin. The code is
> > bloated: it's a library/GUI toolkit implemented *on* *top* *of* other
> > toolkits, libraries, and GUI's. Nope,
At 09:48 AM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>3) WinNT and its C++ comiplers are a fragrant, steaming, fetid mount
>of feces.
Agreed, but...
> The compiles on NT are slower. The compiler has all
>sorts of shit-for-brains "Microsoft extensions" that deviate from
>the ANSI standard. The
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> > John Weiss blathered:
> >
> > > This is, as I understand it, the main problem with WxWin. The code is
> > > bloated: it's a library/GUI toolkit implemented *on* *top* *of*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) writes:
asger aspirated,
3) Fun. It was fun to see the new abstract painter working when we had the
Copenhagen meeting. It will be fun to see the curses version on the screen.
Fun? I could seriously use the curses version at the moment.
Paul Seelig writes:
PS [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) writes:
asger aspirated,
3) Fun. It was fun to see the new abstract painter working when
we had the Copenhagen meeting. It will be fun to see the curses
version on the screen.
Fun? I could seriously
On 21 Feb 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
PS Just two drop my two euro: I'm as well very keen on a ncurses or
PS SLang based LyX. Actually this sounds to me more attractive then
PS the X toolkit stuff. Hah, eat this, hideous StarOffice, slayer
PS of RAM! ;-)
Where can we find C++
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra writes:
AAS On 21 Feb 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
PS Just two drop my two euro: I'm as well very keen on a ncurses or
PS SLang based LyX. Actually this sounds to me more attractive then
PS the X toolkit stuff. Hah, eat this, hideous StarOffice, slayer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) writes:
> asger aspirated,
>
> > 3) Fun. It was fun to see the new abstract painter working when we had the
> > Copenhagen meeting. It will be fun to see the curses version on the screen.
>
> Fun? I could seriously use the curses version at the
>> Paul Seelig writes:
PS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) writes:
>> asger aspirated,
>>
>> > 3) Fun. It was fun to see the new abstract painter working when
>> we had the > Copenhagen meeting. It will be fun to see the curses
>> version on the screen.
>>
>> Fun?
On 21 Feb 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> PS> Just two drop my two euro: I'm as well very keen on a ncurses or
> PS> SLang based LyX. Actually this sounds to me more attractive then
> PS> the X toolkit stuff. Hah, eat this, hideous StarOffice, slayer
> PS> of RAM! ;-)
>
> Where can
>> Alejandro Aguilar Sierra writes:
AAS> On 21 Feb 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
PS> Just two drop my two euro: I'm as well very keen on a ncurses or
PS> SLang based LyX. Actually this sounds to me more attractive then
PS> the X toolkit stuff. Hah, eat this, hideous StarOffice,
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:10:06PM +0100, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
My primary motivations for GUI independence are:
1) Aesthetics. I'm a computer science guy, and I like a good design. Of
course, I like the program to look good on the screen too, but I like a clean
code more.
This
At 07:48 PM 2/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:10:06PM +0100, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
My primary motivations for GUI independence are:
1) Aesthetics. I'm a computer science guy, and I like a good design. Of
be tailored to general use. We don't care about general
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:10:06PM +0100, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> My primary motivations for GUI independence are:
>
> 1) Aesthetics. I'm a computer science guy, and I like a good design. Of
> course, I like the program to look good on the screen too, but I like a clean
> code more.
At 07:48 PM 2/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:10:06PM +0100, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>> My primary motivations for GUI independence are:
>> 1) Aesthetics. I'm a computer science guy, and I like a good design. Of
>be tailored to general use. We don't care about general
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Roland Krause wrote:
Allan,
thanks a lot for your answer. I take this private, dont know whether it would
be interesting for the mailing list. Repost if you think its appropriate.
It seems you left the cc:lyx-devel in yourself so I've elected to just
followup to the
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Roland Krause wrote:
> Allan,
> thanks a lot for your answer. I take this private, dont know whether it would
> be interesting for the mailing list. Repost if you think its appropriate.
It seems you left the cc:lyx-devel in yourself so I've elected to just
followup to the
Allan,
thanks a lot for your answer. I take this private, dont know whether it would
be interesting for the mailing list. Repost if you think its appropriate.
On 13-Feb-99 Allan Rae wrote:
snipped some stuff 8---
Just because we are aiming for support of KDE *and* GNOME doesn't mean we
Allan,
thanks a lot for your answer. I take this private, dont know whether it would
be interesting for the mailing list. Repost if you think its appropriate.
On 13-Feb-99 Allan Rae wrote:
snipped some stuff 8<---
>
> Just because we are aiming for support of KDE *and* GNOME doesn't mean we
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Roland Krause wrote:
Jean-Marc,
On 12-Feb-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Roland" == Roland Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland All Wxwin ports are native, so speed is not an issue, afaict.
Roland Code bloat is something you will get anyway, either it's your
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Roland Krause wrote:
> Jean-Marc,
>
> On 12-Feb-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> "Roland" == Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Roland> All Wxwin ports are native, so speed is not an issue, afaict.
> > Roland> Code bloat is something you will get
"Steven" == Steven van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steven There will be a main toolkit which will replace Xforms though,
Steven isn't it? Instead of replacing Qt with my own toolkit I would
Steven prefer if LyX would use a toolkit that already is suitable for
Steven Winxx. Someone who is
I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve the
entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of platforms.
THey may never come up with a qt port as the qt license prohibits writing
a wrapper around it.
Anyway, they have ports to Win,Motif, Gtk and Mac...
Wouldnt
"Roland" == Roland Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve
Roland the entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of
Roland platforms. THey may never come up with a qt port as the qt
Roland license prohibits writing a
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's the price to pay in terms of code bloat and speed? I doubt that
a cross platform tk could solve magically all our problems.
That's right, and I think we have discussed that point many many times in
the past. So IMO it's necessary to add
On 11-Feb-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Roland" == Roland Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve
Roland the entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of
Roland platforms. THey may never come up with a qt port as
> "Steven" == Steven van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> There will be a main toolkit which will replace Xforms though,
Steven> isn't it? Instead of replacing Qt with my own toolkit I would
Steven> prefer if LyX would use a toolkit that already is suitable for
Steven> Winxx.
I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve the
entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of platforms.
THey may never come up with a qt port as the qt license prohibits writing
a wrapper around it.
Anyway, they have ports to Win,Motif, Gtk and Mac...
Wouldnt
> "Roland" == Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roland> I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve
Roland> the entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of
Roland> platforms. THey may never come up with a qt port as the qt
Roland> license prohibits
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What's the price to pay in terms of code bloat and speed? I doubt that
> a cross platform tk could solve magically all our problems.
That's right, and I think we have discussed that point many many times in
the past. So IMO it's necessary to
On 11-Feb-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Roland" == Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roland> I have recently looked at wxwin/wxgtk again and it may solve
> Roland> the entire problem as it provides an interface to a variety of
> Roland> platforms. THey may never come up
I can understand that. But do you think there will still be a
window-manager-independent version of Lyx like there is today?
What do you mean - I know several people using _KLyX_ on fvwm2 :-)
I now understand that is possible. Thanks.
Scott Johnston
> >I can understand that. But do you think there will still be a
> >window-manager-independent version of Lyx like there is today?
>
> What do you mean - I know several people using _KLyX_ on fvwm2 :-)
I now understand that is possible. Thanks.
Scott Johnston
jmarc jwrote,
The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX core,
and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is clear
that KDE people, for example, would not want something which looks
like a KDE app, but something which *is* a KDE app.
also, it strikes me
The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX
core, and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is
clear that KDE people, for example, would not want something which
looks like a KDE app, but something which *is* a KDE app.
I can understand that. But do you
I can understand that. But do you think there will still be a
window-manager-independent version of Lyx like there is today?
Of course there will be -- I guess the XForms port will stay alive as it is.
Hopefully, there will also be a ncurses version too.
Greets,
Asger
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX
core, and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is
clear that KDE people, for example, would not want something which
looks like a KDE app, but something which
jmarc jwrote,
> The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX core,
> and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is clear
> that KDE people, for example, would not want something which looks
> like a KDE app, but something which *is* a KDE app.
also, it
> The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX
> core, and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is
> clear that KDE people, for example, would not want something which
> looks like a KDE app, but something which *is* a KDE app.
I can understand that. But do
> I can understand that. But do you think there will still be a
> window-manager-independent version of Lyx like there is today?
Of course there will be -- I guess the XForms port will stay alive as it is.
Hopefully, there will also be a ncurses version too.
Greets,
Asger
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The route we are trying to take is to have a tk-independent LyX
> > core, and let people develop native frontends on top of that. It is
> > clear that KDE people, for example, would not want something which
> > looks like a KDE app, but something
Dear Lyx developers,
Congratulations on your 1.0.0 release. It built without any problem
on my RedHat 4.1 Linux box with gcc-2.7.2.1, and I can tell it is
going to be my document editor of choice.
As you advance toward your goal of toolkit agnosticism, have you
considered the use of ivtools
Dear Lyx developers,
Congratulations on your 1.0.0 release. It built without any problem
on my RedHat 4.1 Linux box with gcc-2.7.2.1, and I can tell it is
going to be my document editor of choice.
As you advance toward your goal of toolkit agnosticism, have you
considered the use of ivtools
48 matches
Mail list logo
