Am 11.08.2022 um 09:37 schrieb Pavel Sanda <[email protected]>:
>
Thanks for having a look at it.
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> 1)
>> AFAICS the synctex activation is possible for more than pfdlatex output
>> only. I???ve tried dvi, luatex and xetex and all of them work for me. So
>> I???ve changed the check in BufferParams::writeLaTeX to use
>> OutputParams::isLaTeX. Is someone to tell if this change is the right one?
>> Perhaps it???s superfluous in BufferParams::writeLaTeX at all and one can
>> output it w/o the check for the flavor here?
>
> This is very long time ago and my memory might be failing, but I think the
> disctinction between srcltx vs synctex was there because srcltx was working
> for dvi.
> So perhaps enabling synctex for luatex and xetex is a safer than testing that
> without srcltx dvi works on other platforms?
Hmm. I wanted to say to use a simple else instead on another if statement with
the check for isLaTeX() or for pdflatex. The test for LaTeX with the srcltx if
should remain.
That would be:
if (output_sync) {
if (!output_sync_macro.empty())
os << from_utf8(output_sync_macro) +"\n";
else if (features.runparams().flavor == Flavor::LaTeX)
os << "\\usepackage[active]{srcltx}\n";
else
os << "\\synctex=-1\n";
}
>> 2)
>> The LFUN_FORWARD_SEARCH implementation relies on the correct check in
>> getStatus. The patch adds the explicit check for presence of current buffer
>> and active output_sync state. Regarding the latter I???m not sure if someone
>> is unhappy with it. In case of preamble code to activate synctex the
>> LFUN_FORWARD_SEARCH would work but LyX doesn???t know that and it???s
>> disabled. What is your opinion here?
>
> - I would naively expect that check for buffer is enforced by dispatch
> (unless NoBuffer flag for lfun is specified, which won't be in this case).
> But I might miss something.
You’re right. But there is the check for a valid buffer in many (most?) other
cases and the comment in dispatch claims that getStatus checks it. So one
should at least change the comment? :)
> - It did not happen to me that I needed direct preamble editing for sync so
> it seems we are rather on the safe side to check output_sync state. On the
> other hand what is the drawback of allowing the lfun regardless of
> output_sync state?
The drawback for users is the missing visual feedback that w/o active
output_sync state the forward search is not possible.
Stephan
--
lyx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
