Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| > | > | Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > | > writes:
| > | > | | | >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel
| > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > | | | | Peter> I've reproduced the error and fixed it. The problem
| > | > was, not
| > | > | | Peter> only page up/down keys were dropped. This code does not work
| > | > | | Peter> (because of the implicit casts?)
| > | > | | | | Peter> static const int delayed_keys = Qt::Key_PageDown |
| > | > | | Peter> Qt::Key_PageUp; if (e->key() & delayed_keys) {
| > | > | | | | I know this stuff is very difficult to get right, but I do
| > | > not like at
| > | > | | all the idea of testing explicitely qt::pageup/down. We should not
| > | > | | depend on these hardcoded keys. For example, your patch will fail
for
| > | > | | people who use the emacs bindings and use Ctrl+v for page down. I am
| > | > | | not asking for adding another case for Ctrl+v (!) but I'd prefer a
| > | > | | solution which does not take this into account (especially since I
do
| > | > | | not understand why only PageDown would be a problem (why is
paragraph
| > | > | | down not a problem?)
| > | > | | What is the problem that you are trying to solve here?
| > | > Is it my old pet? "Countinued scorrling after key-release"?
| > | | Only the keyboard part is the same.
| > In what sense?
|
| Peter's patch fix also the scrollbar lagging issues reported by Helge.
What scrollbar lagging issues? Similar to the continued scrolling
after key-release? (except that now it is mouse-button-release instead?)
|
| > | > What was wrong with my patch from months back?
| > | | I guess nothing (and I told you to commit at the time). FYI I
| > posted
| > | your last version of the patch in bugzilla:
| > | | http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3320
| > So why are you trying other exotic patches now?
| Me?
no. you all.
| I am just giving some help and some direction. Peter is doing the
| work. I guess he weighted the pro and cons of your approach.
|
| > (At the time I felt that the patch was a bit hackish, X11 only and had
| > too little testing.)
|
| Peter went through several patch and approach because each of those
| was failing one test or another AFAIU.
I'll let Peter tell me why my approach was ditched then.
--
Lgb
