Comments for EvandroMyller.blog http://emyller.net/blog JavaScript, Linux, KDE and the Universe secrets. Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:39:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Kate color schemes by Evandro Myller http://emyller.net/blog/kate-color-schemes/comment-page-1/#comment-3738 Evandro Myller Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:39:05 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/06/kate-color-schemes/#comment-3738 Sure you can. <a href="http://twitter.com/emyller" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a> Sure you can.

Twitter

]]> Comment on New home by betfair winning http://emyller.net/blog/new-home/comment-page-1/#comment-3731 betfair winning Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:48:22 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/?p=202#comment-3731 It sounds like that when you are looking It sounds like that when you are looking

]]> Comment on Kate color schemes by Yankevich http://emyller.net/blog/kate-color-schemes/comment-page-1/#comment-3726 Yankevich Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:34:34 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/06/kate-color-schemes/#comment-3726 I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter? I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?

]]> Comment on Pâté, Kate and Kubuntu (KDE 4) by jaymz http://emyller.net/blog/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3645 jaymz Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:29:10 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/08/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/#comment-3645 Hey, thanks for this, I've just upgraded everything and am loving KDE4 along with the new kate & konsole and this has topped it off. I had the same problem as Darren above but his command did the trick. I'm using Kubuntu 9.10. I had another problem when running make, I would get: <blockquote> jaymz@wario:~/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a8/build$ make all CMakeFiles/python_module_PyKDE4_kate.dir/build.make:103: *** missing separator. Stop. make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/python_module_PyKDE4_kate.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 </blockquote> It turns out in the make file my "pykde_version_tag" was set to what looks like what was probably meant to be the output of a group of commands: <blockquote> pykde_version_tag:-g -j 1 -c /home/jaymz/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a8/build/sip/kate -I /usr/share/sip/PyQt4 -I /usr/share/sip/PyKDE4 -I /home/jaymz/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a$ </blockquote> and it had spilled over onto another line. I just fixed it up onto 1 line and replaced it with KDE_4. Make then ran ok. Cheers again. Hey, thanks for this, I’ve just upgraded everything and am loving KDE4 along with the new kate & konsole and this has topped it off. I had the same problem as Darren above but his command did the trick. I’m using Kubuntu 9.10.

I had another problem when running make, I would get:

jaymz@wario:~/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a8/build$ make all
CMakeFiles/python_module_PyKDE4_kate.dir/build.make:103: *** missing separator. Stop.
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/python_module_PyKDE4_kate.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

It turns out in the make file my “pykde_version_tag” was set to what looks like what was probably meant to be the output of a group of commands:

pykde_version_tag:-g -j 1 -c /home/jaymz/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a8/build/sip/kate -I /usr/share/sip/PyQt4 -I /usr/share/sip/PyKDE4 -I /home/jaymz/Desktop/pag-pate-c9309a$

and it had spilled over onto another line. I just fixed it up onto 1 line and replaced it with KDE_4. Make then ran ok.

Cheers again.

]]> Comment on How to connect with 3G through Kubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) by Smet http://emyller.net/blog/kubuntu3g/comment-page-1/#comment-3465 Smet Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:41:34 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/kubuntu3g/#comment-3465 Thanks dude!!! This is a fine solution, easy and working. Thanks dude!!!
This is a fine solution, easy and working.

]]> Comment on Pâté, Kate and Kubuntu (KDE 4) by Evandro Myller http://emyller.net/blog/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2984 Evandro Myller Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:39:59 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/08/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/#comment-2984 I didn't try it on other OS than Kubuntu (jaunty and karmic), but it looks like that, in your case, "--DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config –prefix)" is being included in the cmake given path. Please check if you are not missing any white space in the command; try to type the command instead of copy-pasting it and let me know what you get. :) I didn’t try it on other OS than Kubuntu (jaunty and karmic), but it looks like that, in your case, “–DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config –prefix)” is being included in the cmake given path.
Please check if you are not missing any white space in the command; try to type the command instead of copy-pasting it and let me know what you get. :)

]]> Comment on Pâté, Kate and Kubuntu (KDE 4) by Darren Dale http://emyller.net/blog/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2982 Darren Dale Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:33:32 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/08/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/#comment-2982 When I tried to execute: $ cmake .. --DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config --prefix) I got an error: CMake Error: The source directory "/usr/local/src/pate/build/--DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr" does not exist. Instead, the following worked for me: cmake --DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config --prefix) .. (gentoo ~amd64, cmake version 2.6-patch 4) When I tried to execute:

$ cmake .. –DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config –prefix)

I got an error:

CMake Error: The source directory “/usr/local/src/pate/build/–DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr” does not exist.

Instead, the following worked for me:

cmake –DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$(kde4-config –prefix) ..

(gentoo ~amd64, cmake version 2.6-patch 4)

]]> Comment on Pâté, Kate and Kubuntu (KDE 4) by Evandro Myller http://emyller.net/blog/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2949 Evandro Myller Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:21:26 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/08/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/#comment-2949 Yes, it's very useful and gives Kate (my favorite text editor) a new life. Please let me know if you write any new plugin! :D Yes, it’s very useful and gives Kate (my favorite text editor) a new life. Please let me know if you write any new plugin! :D

]]> Comment on Pâté, Kate and Kubuntu (KDE 4) by Jeroen Tietema http://emyller.net/blog/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2948 Jeroen Tietema Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:15:51 +0000 http://emyller.net/blog/2009/08/pate-kate-and-kubuntu-kde-4/#comment-2948 That's awesome. I discovered Pâté some time ago and was disappointed that it wasn't kde4 compatible. Being able to script in Python for Kate will contribute much to Kate plugin development. Thanks for sharing! That’s awesome. I discovered Pâté some time ago and was disappointed that it wasn’t kde4 compatible.

Being able to script in Python for Kate will contribute much to Kate plugin development.

Thanks for sharing!

]]> Comment on Take the <script> out of your <head>! by Evandro Myller http://emyller.net/blog/take-the-script-out-of-your-head/comment-page-1/#comment-2818 Evandro Myller Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:33:51 +0000 http://emyller.net/?p=58#comment-2818 I don't see a reason for using an event, error checking or a even surrounding function in such simple code. That's is just an example, shown that way to be clear and didactic. Mostly users will put something like that in a separate .js file, maybe surround in a function to create vars without messing with global scope, etc. Anyway, that is really a good practice. Answering your question, scripts aren't loaded in parallel. This is one of the reasons that we put scripts at bottom: they're loaded (and parsed) as contents. A second script will only be parsed when the first one is already parsed. A measurable effect? Users won't be able to view any content in <body> 'till all the scripts in <head> are loaded and executed. The most important part of the page (the content) <strong>must</strong> be shown first (and be functional), then, after, we can load some <strong>additional</strong> behaviors (this is non-obstrusive scripting). Well, for 96% of all the reasons out there, putting scripts at bottom is the best option. I will write a new post about it, with examples and more details, as soon as possible. Thanks. :) I don’t see a reason for using an event, error checking or a even surrounding function in such simple code. That’s is just an example, shown that way to be clear and didactic. Mostly users will put something like that in a separate .js file, maybe surround in a function to create vars without messing with global scope, etc. Anyway, that is really a good practice.

Answering your question, scripts aren’t loaded in parallel. This is one of the reasons that we put scripts at bottom: they’re loaded (and parsed) as contents. A second script will only be parsed when the first one is already parsed.

A measurable effect? Users won’t be able to view any content in ’till all the scripts in are loaded and executed. The most important part of the page (the content) must be shown first (and be functional), then, after, we can load some additional behaviors (this is non-obstrusive scripting).

Well, for 96% of all the reasons out there, putting scripts at bottom is the best option. I will write a new post about it, with examples and more details, as soon as possible. Thanks. :)

]]>