Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread Joel Kulesza
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 8:45 AM, racoon  wrote:

> On 31.03.2018 15:45, Joel Kulesza wrote:
>
>> I regret that continually sending URLs about what "fn" means will not
>> change my mind that (a) fn comes first as "function" and (b) foot->fn is an
>> improvement.
>>
>
> Abbreviations are contextual and these links feel like selection bias to
>> me.  Clearly, by just using two letters one can mean a lot of things (my
>> own Google'd URL: https://www.abbreviations.com/FN).
>>
>
> Yes, I agree context is important. That is why I send the scholarly texts
> which LyX is clearly related to.
>
> Further, I wonder how translations of just the two letters would work.
>>
>
> I don't think English abbreviations on labels should be chosen based on
> whether they work in other languages as well. It would also be a pretty
> tricky aim given the variety in languages.


True, but it is a complicating factor.


> To the remark:
>>
>> Yes, "footnote" might be better than "foot". But I think there is reason
>>> to prefer a short labels since labels clutter the text. Hence, I suggest
>>> "fn" or, maybe, "fn.".
>>>
>>
>> I wonder why you think brevity is preferable to clarity.  I suspect
>> "foot" was attempting to strike a balance.  I'd rather see no change than
>> moving too hard in one direction (brevity) versus the other.
>>
>
> The argument was not based on brevity alone. (Though I still consider it a
> virtue.) There was also the reason for "fn" being a common abbreviation for
> footnote in texts while "foot" is none. Hence, also, my favoring "footnote"
> over "foot".


Understood.  I too favor footnote over foot but prefer foot over fn
(consistent with prior behavior and less ambiguity even if abnormal).


> Further, regarding context: because LaTeX can and is used with
>> mathematics, "fn" could easily be misunderstood as function by a new user
>> and not taken immediately as a footnote even by an experienced one if
>> collapsable mathematical insets were to be used.
>>
> I don't think "fn" is a common abbreviation for function in mathematics.
> At least I can't remember having come across it in my studies. Do you have
> any evidence?
>

In my undergraduate and graduate math and engineering courses, "fn" for
function is common.  Further, the couple previous replies from Jose and
Scott that "fn" first felt like "function" (and no replies to counter other
than yours) are what lead me to this.


> The only place I see "Fn" is right in front of me on my keyboard. There it
> actually stands for "function", so that might be where the connection is
> coming from. But it is not mathematical at all. Still the connection might
> be made by enough people. I don't know that.
>

Indeed, that's another good instance of fn = function that I hadn't thought
of.


> Daniel
>
> P.S. Said in jest: it's interesting to have a conversation with someone on
>> how to properly name/identify something who goes by the handle "racoon".  I
>> imagine a character from Guardians of the Galaxy on the far end of this
>> email (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Raccoon).
>>
> I am just too lazy to change my sender address. Notice the addition "c"
> though. Two more tries. :)
>

I thought maybe you eliminated the extra "c" for brevity. ;-)


Re: Behavior of overset inset creation on selection

2018-03-31 Thread Joel Kulesza
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

> To see an issue that has long annoyed me, do the following:
>
> 1. In math mode, type "=".
> 2. Select the "=" you just typed.
> 3. Choose "Overset" from the math toolbar (alternatively, just type
> "\overset").
>
> The "=" is put in the "above" box, because that is the first LaTeX
> argument. From the user perspective, I think that putting "=" in the
> primary box is usually expected. For example, I think that this would be
> more consistent with when the user selects something and chooses
> "subscript". The thing selected is in the main box (it is not placed
> into the subscript).
>
> What are your thoughts?
>

I've never used this math feature; however, my expectation is consistent
with yours (and counter to the behavior you describe).


Jenkins build is back to normal : Build branch "master" » ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended #867

2018-03-31 Thread ci-lyx
https://ci.inria.fr/lyx/job/build-master-head/job/ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended/867/


Behavior of overset inset creation on selection

2018-03-31 Thread Scott Kostyshak
To see an issue that has long annoyed me, do the following:

1. In math mode, type "=".
2. Select the "=" you just typed.
3. Choose "Overset" from the math toolbar (alternatively, just type "\overset").

The "=" is put in the "above" box, because that is the first LaTeX
argument. From the user perspective, I think that putting "=" in the
primary box is usually expected. For example, I think that this would be
more consistent with when the user selects something and chooses
"subscript". The thing selected is in the main box (it is not placed
into the subscript).

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Windows installer: extra discussion on dialog

2018-03-31 Thread Scott Kostyshak
Dear all,

I am starting a thread on the lyx-users list for a new round of feedback
on the wording of the dialog. You (developers) are also welcome to
participate in that thread if you have experience helping Windows users
and have a feeling for what might be confusing for the *average* Windows
user of LyX.

I understand Uwe's concern that a dialog has the potential to confuse
users. I hope that if we can come up with a message where there is
agreement that the average user would not be confused, we can move
forward with making an official Windows installer. I plan to keep
working on improving the message if necessary, until there is agreement
that it is clear for the average Windows user of LyX, since I think we
all have the same goal in that providing an official Windows installer
is a high priority.

In addition to the actual wording of the dialog, there are a few other
issues to discuss:

1. At what point during the installation should we show the dialog?

Racoon pointed out [1] that it might be best for the dialog to not come
directly at the beginning, since there is already a dialog with an
option "do not use LaTeX" and that answer is important for (2), below.

2. Under which conditions should we show the dialog?

From what I understand, we should not show the dialog if:

a. The user chooses "do not use LaTeX".
b. There is no MiKTeX installation detected on the user's computer.
c. The user already has a MiKTeX installation that is new enough.
d. The user already has a TeX Live installation.

3. Which option should be the default, i.e. if the user presses "enter",
instead of clicking, is "Continue" selected or is "Cancel" selected?

In these types of dialogs, I believe "Cancel" is most commonly the
default for "enter", but I am fine with making "Continue" the default in
our situation if others are fine with it.

Best,

Scott


[1] 
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=p8onkk%24rjk%241%40blaine.gmane.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

2018-03-31 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:13:13PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> > Alse we can always add something like "If you don't know what the message 
> > above
> > exactly means you probably want to press 'Yes'" as I sometimes saw on other
> > installers. 
> 
> I think this could be a good idea.

I've included something along these lines in the newest proposal for a
dialog.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 15:45, Joel Kulesza wrote:
I regret that continually sending URLs about what "fn" means will not 
change my mind that (a) fn comes first as "function" and (b) foot->fn is 
an improvement.


Abbreviations are contextual and these links feel like selection bias to 
me.  Clearly, by just using two letters one can mean a lot of things (my 
own Google'd URL: https://www.abbreviations.com/FN). 


Yes, I agree context is important. That is why I send the scholarly 
texts which LyX is clearly related to.


Further, I wonder 
how translations of just the two letters would work.


I don't think English abbreviations on labels should be chosen based on 
whether they work in other languages as well. It would also be a pretty 
tricky aim given the variety in languages.



To the remark:


Yes, "footnote" might be better than "foot". But I think there is reason to prefer a short labels 
since labels clutter the text. Hence, I suggest "fn" or, maybe, "fn.".


I wonder why you think brevity is preferable to clarity.  I suspect 
"foot" was attempting to strike a balance.  I'd rather see no change 
than moving too hard in one direction (brevity) versus the other.  


The argument was not based on brevity alone. (Though I still consider it 
a virtue.) There was also the reason for "fn" being a common 
abbreviation for footnote in texts while "foot" is none. Hence, also, my 
favoring "footnote" over "foot".


Further, regarding context: because LaTeX can and is used with 
mathematics, "fn" could easily be misunderstood as function by a new 
user and not taken immediately as a footnote even by an experienced one 
if collapsable mathematical insets were to be used.
I don't think "fn" is a common abbreviation for function in mathematics. 
At least I can't remember having come across it in my studies. Do you 
have any evidence?


The only place I see "Fn" is right in front of me on my keyboard. There 
it actually stands for "function", so that might be where the connection 
is coming from. But it is not mathematical at all. Still the connection 
might be made by enough people. I don't know that.


Daniel


P.S. Said in jest: it's interesting to have a conversation with someone on how to 
properly name/identify something who goes by the handle "racoon".  I imagine a 
character from Guardians of the Galaxy on the far end of this email 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Raccoon).
I am just too lazy to change my sender address. Notice the addition "c" 
though. Two more tries. :)




Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread Joel Kulesza
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:41 AM, racoon  wrote:

> On 31.03.2018 12:34, racoon wrote:
>
>> On 31.03.2018 12:33, racoon wrote:
>>
>>> On 31.03.2018 12:23, racoon wrote:
>>>
 On 31.03.2018 00:03, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52 WEST racoon wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
>>> label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
>>> much more common abbreviation than the former.
>>>
>>
>> I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)
>>
>
> My first thought was of "function" also.
>

 Come on, there are so much more FUN abbreviations for function. ;)

 Here is some evidence that the abbreviation fn is actually used for
 footnotes:

 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en_sdt=0%2C5=%22s
 ee+fn%22=

>>>
>>> Wikipedia uses the fn abbreviation in the code:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_embe
>>> dding_references
>>>
>>
>>
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fn
>>
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fn
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/fn.
>
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fn
>
> https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesaur
> uses-pictures-and-press-releases/fn
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-correct-abbreviation-for-f
> ootnote?share=1


I regret that continually sending URLs about what "fn" means will not
change my mind that (a) fn comes first as "function" and (b) foot->fn is an
improvement.

Abbreviations are contextual and these links feel like selection bias to
me.  Clearly, by just using two letters one can mean a lot of things (my
own Google'd URL: https://www.abbreviations.com/FN).  Further, I wonder how
translations of just the two letters would work.

To the remark:

> Yes, "footnote" might be better than "foot". But I think there is reason
to prefer a short labels since labels clutter the text. Hence, I suggest
"fn" or, maybe, "fn.".

I wonder why you think brevity is preferable to clarity.  I suspect "foot"
was attempting to strike a balance.  I'd rather see no change than moving
too hard in one direction (brevity) versus the other.  Further, regarding
context: because LaTeX can and is used with mathematics, "fn" could easily
be misunderstood as function by a new user and not taken immediately as a
footnote even by an experienced one if collapsable mathematical insets were
to be used.

Regarding cluttering the text: does a label 2 characters wide save that
much versus 4, and do 8 characters really clutter that much more
significantly?

My suggestion if this is truly a bother, set up some way to have it user
configured rather than forcing the identifier upon him/her if Riki's
suggestion (https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/11092#comment:1) isn't
satisfactory.

Bottom line: I'd rather see no change than one that could lead to increased
confusion and translation issues.

Thanks,
Joel

P.S. Said in jest: it's interesting to have a conversation with someone on
how to properly name/identify something who goes by the handle "racoon".  I
imagine a character from Guardians of the Galaxy on the far end of this
email (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Raccoon).


Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 12:34, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 12:33, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 12:23, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 00:03, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52 WEST racoon wrote:

I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
much more common abbreviation than the former.


I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)


My first thought was of "function" also.


Come on, there are so much more FUN abbreviations for function. ;)

Here is some evidence that the abbreviation fn is actually used for 
footnotes:


https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en_sdt=0%2C5=%22see+fn%22= 



Wikipedia uses the fn abbreviation in the code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_embedding_references 



https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fn


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fn

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/fn.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fn

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/fn

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-correct-abbreviation-for-footnote?share=1



Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 12:33, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 12:23, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 00:03, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52 WEST racoon wrote:

I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
much more common abbreviation than the former.


I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)


My first thought was of "function" also.


Come on, there are so much more FUN abbreviations for function. ;)

Here is some evidence that the abbreviation fn is actually used for 
footnotes:


https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en_sdt=0%2C5=%22see+fn%22= 



Wikipedia uses the fn abbreviation in the code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_embedding_references 


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fn

Daniel




Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 12:23, racoon wrote:

On 31.03.2018 00:03, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52 WEST racoon wrote:

I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
much more common abbreviation than the former.


I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)


My first thought was of "function" also.


Come on, there are so much more FUN abbreviations for function. ;)

Here is some evidence that the abbreviation fn is actually used for 
footnotes:


https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en_sdt=0%2C5=%22see+fn%22=


Wikipedia uses the fn abbreviation in the code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_embedding_references

Daniel



Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 01:30, Joel Kulesza wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Scott Kostyshak > wrote:


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52  WEST racoon 
wrote:
> > I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
> > label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
> > much more common abbreviation than the former.
>
> I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)

My first thought was of "function" also.


"fn" is also function in my mind.  Is "foot" too verbose?  For clarity, 
why not "footnote"?


Yes, "footnote" might be better than "foot". But I think there is reason 
to prefer a short labels since labels clutter the text. Hence, I suggest 
"fn" or, maybe, "fn.".


Daniel



Re: Poll: change "foot x" too "fn x"

2018-03-31 Thread racoon

On 31.03.2018 00:03, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 20.26.52 WEST racoon wrote:

I'd like to get your take on an enhancement request for changing the
label for footnotes from "foot x" too "fn x". I think the latter is a
much more common abbreviation than the former.


I agree but for me fn remembers FuNction. :-)


My first thought was of "function" also.


Come on, there are so much more FUN abbreviations for function. ;)

Here is some evidence that the abbreviation fn is actually used for 
footnotes:


https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en_sdt=0%2C5=%22see+fn%22=

Daniel



Build failed in Jenkins: Build branch "master" » ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended #866

2018-03-31 Thread ci-lyx
https://ci.inria.fr/lyx/job/build-master-head/job/ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended/866/--
Started by an SCM change
Building remotely on lyx-linux1 (linux) in workspace 

[WS-CLEANUP] Deleting project workspace...
Cloning the remote Git repository
Using shallow clone
Avoid fetching tags
Honoring refspec on initial clone
Cloning repository git://git.lyx.org/lyx.git
 > git init 
 > 
 >  # timeout=10
Fetching upstream changes from git://git.lyx.org/lyx.git
 > git --version # timeout=10
 > git fetch --no-tags --progress git://git.lyx.org/lyx.git 
 > +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* --depth=1
ERROR: Timeout after 10 minutes
ERROR: Error cloning remote repo 'origin'
hudson.plugins.git.GitException: Command "git fetch --no-tags --progress 
git://git.lyx.org/lyx.git +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* --depth=1" 
returned status code 143:
stdout: 
stderr: remote: Counting objects: 32753, done.
remote: Compressing objects:   0% (1/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   1% (240/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   2% (480/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   3% (720/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   4% (959/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   5% (1199/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   6% (1439/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   7% (1678/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   8% (1918/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:   9% (2158/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  10% (2397/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  11% (2637/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  12% (2877/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  13% (3116/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  13% (3320/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  14% (3356/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  15% (3596/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  16% (3835/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  17% (4075/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  18% (4315/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  19% (4554/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  20% (4794/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  21% (5034/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  22% (5273/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  22% (5342/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  23% (5513/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  24% (5753/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  25% (5992/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  26% (6232/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  27% (6472/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  28% (6711/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  29% (6951/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  30% (7191/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  31% (7430/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  32% (7670/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  33% (7910/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  33% (8132/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  34% (8149/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  35% (8389/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  35% (8596/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  36% (8629/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  37% (8868/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  37% (8961/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  38% (9108/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  39% (9348/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  40% (9587/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  41% (9827/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  42% (10067/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  42% (10253/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  43% (10306/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  44% (10546/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  45% (10786/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  46% (11025/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  47% (11265/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  48% (11505/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  49% (11744/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  50% (11984/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  51% (12224/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  52% (12463/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  52% (12629/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  53% (12703/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  54% (12943/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  55% (13182/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  56% (13422/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  57% (13662/23967)   
remote: Compressing objects:  58% (13901/23967)   
remote: Compressing 

Re: Python 3 as the default for 2.4

2018-03-31 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Samstag, 31. März 2018 00:25:00 CEST schrieb José Abílio Matos 
:
> On Friday, 30 March 2018 20.21.53 WEST Kornel Benko wrote:
> > And we should distinguish usage of python at configure and build time,
> > from
> > the use at lyx-run-time.
> > 
> > Kornel
> 
> That is where I respectfully disagree. :-)
> 
> What you are suggesting is equivalent to release a lyx version with the
> documentation file format that is smaller than the current file format.
> Although it does work we never do that, before the release we always update
> the documentation to the file format of the released version.

Hm, yes, sort of. But in contrast to a provided new lyx with new doc-version, 
we do not provide a new python package together with lyx.

> The reason why I say this is similar to a blog that I read yesterday:
> "Is Python interpreted or compiled? Yes."
> https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201803/is_python_interpreted_or_compiled_yes.
> html
> 
> When we install the python file we create the pyc files, and those files are
> specific to a given python version. If the code is read with another
> version we need to regenerate those files again.

I was not aware of this. If a package is created by cmake, then the installed 
does not contain any .pyc file. Why do we create .pyc in automake? I never 
suffered under execution times of python in lyx.

> With python 3 those files place in a directory called __pycache__. BTW one
> of the changes of python 3.7 (that is now at version beta) is to have
> reproducible builds for pyc files:
> https://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/3.7.html#hash-based-pycs
> 
> BTW the extreme case where the same python version is required for both
> build and runtime would be if one python module was linked with lyx c++
> code (say a common library that allows to read and interface directly with
> lyx data structures).

True. We do not require it, and so our python sources should be OK with 
respect to 2.7 and 3.3 version.

> The reason why I am being cautious is to have everyone understanding the
> implications of the move that I am proposing.
> 
> Thank you Kornel for this thoughtful email exchange. :-)

Thank you too.

Kornel



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.