http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Additional Comments From
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Additional Comments From
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW
admitting that LyX can't do it all and providing some way of getting
under the hood. I always felt that the whole EvilRedText thing was
just an apeasement of the M$ Word crowd, anyhow.
Still, Raw or PassThru seems fine by me.
Go for 'Raw'.
This way we would spare us a flame war on the
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Let's just keep it as it is now: ERT Encapsulated Raw Text
Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
i see, the problem is the first uppercase letter ...
Herbert :-)
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Let's just keep it as it is now: ERT Encapsulated Raw Text
Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
I'm not
> admitting that LyX can't do it all and providing some way of getting
> under the hood. I always felt that the whole "EvilRedText" thing was
> just an apeasement of the M$ Word crowd, anyhow.
>
> Still, "Raw" or "PassThru" seems fine by me.
Go for 'Raw'.
This way we would spare us a flame
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
>
> Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
i see, the problem is the first uppercase letter ...
Herbert :-)
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
> > >
> > > Okokok...
> >
> > I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
> >
> >
On 29-Jul-2001 Garst R. Reese wrote:
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Oh you have the same problems there, people seeing Harry Potter
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:41:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
The TeX inset on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
In a DocBook document TeX won't make much sense.
Whoa. Never thought of that. In my mind, the LyX backend is always LaTeX.
On
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:27:06PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Amir Karger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| To me, though, markup seems like it's even more marked up than LyX, not more
| raw. I'd go with raw.
I still think '666' gives the right assosiations.
Only to those people who
| Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
eh? '666'?
what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see 666?
Actually, knowledge about the deeper meaning of '666' seems not to be too
widespread among all the supporters of a few 'other' religions and the
atheist
| I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
| name of that beast.
pun intended?
Sure... puns are not frowned upon hereabout...
Why not just rename the inset label to The Beast
For exactly the same raeson. _I_ would not know what 'The Beast
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
| name of that beast.
pun intended?
Why not just rename the inset label to The Beast
the wickedest inset in the world
john
--
I'd rather
Mike Ressler wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Or just change the ERT acronym to be something else. Eloquent
Lars Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
Encapsulated Raw Text?
:-) A
Garst R. Reese wrote:
Mike Ressler wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Or just change the ERT acronym to be something else. Eloquent
Lars Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
* Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
| Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
eh? '666'?
what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see 666?
i only think hä, was is los? or for non germans what? what's going on here?
(hoping htat
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever to
settle because everybody has an opinion. Hmm. I have to practice that mind
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever
On 29-Jul-2001 Garst R. Reese wrote:
>> TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
> It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
> Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Oh you have the same problems there, people seeing &
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:41:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
>
> > The "TeX inset" on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
>
> In a DocBook document "TeX" won't make much sense.
Whoa. Never thought of that. In my mind, the LyX backend is always
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:27:06PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | To me, though, markup seems like it's even more marked up than LyX, not more
> | raw. I'd go with raw.
>
> I still think '666' gives the right assosiation
> | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
>
> eh? '666'?
>
> what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
Actually, knowledge about the deeper meaning of '666' seems not to be too
widespread among all the supporters o
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
Sure... puns are not frowned upon hereabout...
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
For exactly the same raeson. _I_ would
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
>
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
"the wi
Mike Ressler wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
> >
> >
"Garst R. Reese" wrote:
>
> Mike Ressler wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
> > | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
> >
> > eh? '666'?
> >
> > what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
>
i only think "h
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever to
settle because everybody has an opinion. Hmm. I have to practice that mind
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
> better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
> thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial det
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:32:00PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
Greets
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:32:00PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least m
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no
Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> >
> > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > is not very intuitive either, but at le
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > >
> > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > changing it to
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > >
> > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The 66
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen&
On 24-Jul-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| 4) Lars does not like adding the Latex layout back in because there
|would be two different ways of adding Latex.
I'm still of the opinion that this is a artifical excuse.
| * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small file
|
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:44:47AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 24-Jul-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| 4) Lars does not like adding the Latex layout back in because there
|would be two different ways of adding Latex.
I'm still of the opinion that this is a artifical excuse.
Me
On 24-Jul-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| 4) Lars does not like adding the Latex layout back in because there
>|would be two different ways of adding Latex.
I'm still of the opinion that this is a "artifical" excuse.
>| * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:44:47AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 24-Jul-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> >| 4) Lars does not like adding the Latex layout back in because there
> >|would be two different ways of adding Latex.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that this is a "artifical"
Mike Ressler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just compiled the current CVS and like the 666 inset behavior much
better - collapsing them looks good. However, could the maximum size of
the box be made settable somewhere? From my previous example, \micron
shows up very nicely, as does \farcs
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:08:26PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 23-Jul-2001 Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
Try this with lyx/.../examples/noweb2lyx.lyx and see.
I did and fixed. Please have a look again!
Jürgen
I will do it as soon as it shows up in anon CVS.
However, I do have
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small file
| (lib/layouts/latex-layout.inc).
|
| * Remove the ERT inset and all the backwards compatibility loading and
| writing stuff.
|
| This further
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
Well we could, but I really don't know if this is needed. I made this more
for longer paragraphs with LaTeX code as for shorter one I'll make the
inlined version so that it doesn't collapse, but it will show it's contents
^^^
Ah, yes ...
> Mike Ressler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I've just compiled the current CVS and like the "666 inset" behavior much
> better - collapsing them looks good. However, could the maximum size of
> the box be made settable somewhere? From my previous example, &
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:08:26PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Jul-2001 Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
>
> > Try this with "lyx/.../examples/noweb2lyx.lyx" and see.
>
> I did and fixed. Please have a look again!
>
>Jürgen
I will do it as soon as it shows up in anon CVS.
However,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small file
> | (lib/layouts/latex-layout.inc).
> |
> | * Remove the ERT inset and all the backwards compatibility loading and
> | writing stuff.
> |
> | This
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Well we could, but I really don't know if this is needed. I made this more
> for longer paragraphs with LaTeX code as for shorter one I'll make the
> inlined version so that it doesn't collapse, but it will show it's contents
^^^
Ah, yes
I've just compiled the current CVS and like the 666 inset behavior much
better - collapsing them looks good. However, could the maximum size of
the box be made settable somewhere? From my previous example, \micron
shows up very nicely, as does \farcs; both these have a box size which
matches
I've just compiled the current CVS and like the "666 inset" behavior much
better - collapsing them looks good. However, could the maximum size of
the box be made settable somewhere? From my previous example, "\micron"
shows up very nicely, as does "\farcs"; bo
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
Well this is well known and as developer you should have looked at the
buglist
on SourceForge.net ;)
I still think that this was a sly way to get help, but anyway I've played
further.
#:O)
Well you won't believe it but I know since a long time the
could scan-read my documents without trouble:
In the following code, [[io_str_iterator]] is going to walk down
Now, I see this:
In the following code,
[666]
-
| [[io_str_iterator
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Well this is well known and as developer you should have looked at the
> buglist
>> on SourceForge.net ;)
>
> I still think that this was a sly way to get help, but anyway I've played
> further.
#:O)
Well you won't believe it but I know since a long
could scan-read my documents without trouble:
In the following code, [[io_str_iterator]] is going to walk down
Now, I see this:
In the following code,
[666]
-
| [[io_str_iterator
On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we will change
the InsetERT to be inlined. What will NOT happen is that a inlined
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we will change
the InsetERT to be
:-) Sorry if I sounded overly loud -
I was just shocked by the appearance of those 666 boxes, and hadn't really
followed the previous discussion closely enough to realize what was going
on.
Mike
--
Mike Ressler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I'm lame: I don't have my own website ...
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 09:21:51AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we will
On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond the right
margin
of the workarea ?
Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
complaints about this automatic behaviour someone surely doesn't like!
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond the right
margin
of the workarea ?
Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:08, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond
the right margin
of the workarea ?
Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
complaints about
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
complaints about this automatic behaviour someone surely doesn't like!
Well it seems like a good suggestion to me because it only affects the users
The only change to the above I
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:14, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
Think about the alternative - I add a lot of ert into the inset, so it is
drawn off
the side, and I can't even read it !
Surely we dont really have/want a choice in this circumstance.
Well we
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
Road test to infinite redraws:
1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the width
Well this is well known and as developer you should have looked at the buglist
on SourceForge.net ;)
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:50:43PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
Road test to infinite redraws:
1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the width
Well this is well known and as developer
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:50, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
Road test to infinite redraws:
1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the
width
Well this is well known and as developer you should
On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
> This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
> the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we will change
the InsetERT to be inlined. What will NOT happen is that a inlined
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
> > This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
> > the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
>
> I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we will change
> the InsetERT to
:)
Excellent! Why didn't you just say so :-) Sorry if I sounded overly loud -
I was just shocked by the appearance of those 666 boxes, and hadn't really
followed the previous discussion closely enough to realize what was going
on.
Mike
--
Mike Ressler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I'm lame: I don't have my own website ...
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 09:21:51AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 18-Jul-2001 Mike Ressler wrote:
>
> > This is not a stunning example of WYSIWYM. Please, please, (Lars?) change
> > the appearance back to the old behavior!!!
>
> I don't think this will happen. What will happen is that we
On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
> can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond the right
>margin
> of the workarea ?
Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
complaints about this automatic behaviour someone surely doesn't like!
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> > can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond the right
>margin
> > of the workarea ?
>
> Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:08, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> > can't you un-inline the ert inset automagically when it extends beyond
the right margin
> > of the workarea ?
>
> Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
> complaints
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Probably yes, but do I want to do this? Probably no, as then I would get
>> complaints about this automatic behaviour someone surely doesn't like!
>
> Well it seems like a good suggestion to me because it only affects the users
The only change to the
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:14, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 19-Jul-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> > Think about the alternative - I add a lot of ert into the inset, so it is
drawn off
> > the side, and I can't even read it !
> >
> > Surely we dont really have/want a choice in this circumstance.
>
>
On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
> Road test to infinite redraws:
> 1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
> 2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the width
Well this is well known and as developer you should have looked at the buglist
on SourceForge.net ;)
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:50:43PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Road test to infinite redraws:
> > 1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
> > 2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the width
>
> Well this is well known and
On Thursday 19 July 2001 16:50, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 19-Jul-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Road test to infinite redraws:
> > 1. Insert table, I row, 2 columns
> > 2. Type in first (leftmost) column until the table gets bigger than the
width
>
> Well this is well known and as developer
playing with it - even
though I should go to bed since I just finished observing all night and
need to get up in 6 hours to start all over again. The natbib stuff is
working great. Great job, Angus!
That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
I've seen them. I don't care
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 11:49:45AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
yes, everyone has this gripe. Lars and Juergen are doing things to get it nice
again, but with out re-introducing latex font mode (something that needs
John Levon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 11:49:45AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
yes, everyone has this gripe. Lars and Juergen are doing things to get it nice
again, but with out re-introducing latex font mode
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 05:05:42PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
And John, clicking on MathPanel Greek killed LyX for me also, so it is
probably not your xforms.
hmm. I've tried it against an xforms with /definitely/ the right glibc and still
get the problem too. I'll have to see what's going
, already playing with it - even
though I should go to bed since I just finished observing all night and
need to get up in 6 hours to start all over again. The natbib stuff is
working great. Great job, Angus!
That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
I've seen them
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 11:49:45AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
> That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
yes, everyone has this gripe. Lars and Juergen are doing things to get it nice
again, but with out re-introducing latex font mode (something that ne
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 11:49:45AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
>
> > That said, I want to gripe about the 666 insets, since this is the first
>
> yes, everyone has this gripe. Lars and Juergen are doing things to get it nice
> again, but with out r
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 05:05:42PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> And John, clicking on MathPanel Greek killed LyX for me also, so it is
> probably not your xforms.
hmm. I've tried it against an xforms with /definitely/ the right glibc and still
get the problem too. I'll have to see what's
\AA. But that results in
Thisis 2
[666]|
||
| \AA|
||
in size.
Can't believe that's the way WYSIWYM
Have I missed the trick about how to make this example a
one-liner in LyX.
You seemingly missed a bit of the ongoing Lars bashing...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Have I missed the trick about how to make this example a
one-liner in LyX.
You seemingly missed a bit of the ongoing Lars bashing...
Should I learn from this reply that in LyX WYSIWYM
This is 2 A apart.
will not anymore fit on one line (A as the Angstrom
A is the Angstrom (the tiny distance) symbol?
Of course you could just use 'Å'... alternatively accent-circle A
| I now use in texmode \AA. But that results in
|
| Thisis 2
|
| [666
R. Lahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| R. Lahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | Where A is the Angstrom (the tiny distance) symbol?
|
| Of course you could just use 'Å'... alternatively accent-circle A
|
| Great! Didn't know that!
|
| How do I squeeze
Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
\oe not in latin1
\o is '' ''
\l not in latin1
\SS is ''
Black Magic!
We do not have good support for the unaccented special chars.
A window like the math-panel could help out here.
Support is a must, I bet, if LyX 1.2.0 persues the [666] insets style.
Rob.
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
