To Richard: please, don't forget the list in your reply ;-)
Le 6 juil. 07 à 23:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Le 5 juil. 07 à 16:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
1. Create a new doc.
2. Run latex.
3. View the LaTeX log.
4. Switch to another buffer. Zoops! The log dialog is closed.
Bug?
Probably yes.
I agree, but I have bad news... There are going to be many of dialogs
that behave like this one. AFAIU, precisely all dialogs whose
controller has a method "virtual bool isBufferDependent() const"
returning true. You can find them in all "src/frontends/controllers/
ControlXXX.h" source files.
BTW, there seems to be an rc1/rc2 bug for some of them (e.g. graphics
dialog don't hide anymore when switching buffer, whereas it did in
1.4.4). Please could you confirm?
This was changed a while ago: Buffer dependent dialogs are not
automatically closed when switching buffers any longer. There was a
bug
report about this, in particular, concerning the TOC/outline.
Does automatically means for every class of dialog?
But I'm now convinced that most of these dialogs should remain hidden
when another buffer is displayed. Indeed, it is senseless (despite
respecting the "don't close without prompt" UI guideline) to keep on
screen e.g. a graphics dialog when switching to another buffer
(unrelated info).
Right, but what this means, it seems to me, is that the
isBufferDependent() function was being double-used. To be buffer
dependent, in the intended sense, is to make no sense absent a buffer.
That is different from being dependent upon the specific buffer
displayed.
Then I can confirm. There's a problem related to the use of
isBufferDependent(). Into LyXView.cpp (line 168), you have this
function call:
// Buffer-dependent dialogs should be updated or
// hidden. This should go here because some dialogs (eg ToC)
// require bv_->text.
getDialogs().updateBufferDependent(true);
Then, if you go to Dialogs.cpp, Dialogs::updateBufferDependent()
(line 214), you can see that isBufferDependent() leads to hiding
buffer dependent dialogs (assuming that dialog->controller
().initialiseParams("") will always return false, which is the case
for log dialogs).
I checked that if you modify isBufferDependent() for LaTeX logs
(hence into ControlLog.h) so that it returns true when belonging to a
LaTeX log dialog, then it is no more hidden when switching buffer
(but this isn't sufficient because there are update issues to deal
with...).
I'm curious to know how one should specify that a buffer dependent
dialog has to hide/keep displayed when switching to another buffer.
As for the graphics dialog, a question: If you click away from the
graphics inset to which the dialog is attached, what happens?
The dialog remains as is if you stay into the same buffer. It is
emptied if you switch to another buffer. But in the latter case I
think we have a bug: despite the dialog is emptied, if you modify
some parameters and click the "Apply" button, then parameters are
always linked (and so applied) to the graphics inset. IMO, this is
really unadapted!
What should
happen?
In my vision, this shouldn't be possible for dialogs such as graphics
(modal dialogs). You'd have to close the dialog before. This would
avoid undesired effects (e.g. modify some graphic parameters whereas
the preview is no more visible due to scrolling, or buffer
switching...).
If you click in a new graphics inset, then the dialog gets
updated, I'm sure.
True.
But what if you just click elsewhere?
However, IMO, for most of these dialogs (such as graphics, label,
citation, reference, etc.), there would be an easier and better
solution regarding buffer switch (among others): make them modal!
After all, what is the benefit of keeping such dialogs independent
from the main window?
This is a much discussed issue. Some people like having non-modal
dialogs,
Ok. I'm not of them, with a fiew exceptions, e.g. for the LaTeX log
in the scope of master/children docs.
e.g., the text settings dialog. But there are issues about update
that led
to the paragraph settings dialog becoming modal. Abdel is working
on this.
The intention is for it to become non-modal again, once he's got it
sorted
out.
Well I can't see why. If you want to apply the same settings to
several paragraphs, you could select them all, and then apply
settings, no?
If you want to deal with several paragraphs in a row, it's much more
convenient to be able to keep it open.
Several paragraphs in a row?? I don't understand. Could you explain
please?
Clearly, this would have non negligible advantages:
[snip]
But it's overkill, I think, to make everything modal.
I didn't say that. I think there should some exceptions for dialogs
managing info related to more than one buffer, or even more than one
inset, if applicable.
But note that some dialogs are already modal (I think of open, save
and so on...).
They shouldn't be
view-specific, that's true. But that's a different issue.
If they are non-modal, then there should be a good reason for keeping
them active when switching to another view. This is the case with
LaTeX log and child documents, but I think that there are not many
such cases.
Clearly, there are some dialogs (e.g. graphics, paragraph settings,
cross ref., float, ...) that don't need to be non-modal. If some
users would like them non-modal, some other users wouldn't. As a
consequence, there could be an option in UI section of preferences.
IMO, things need to be clarified. We could try to list dialogs which
are to be buffer view dependent, master/child view dependent, and if
this is adopted, "possibly" modal (depending on a preferences option).
Mael.
