On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:37:50PM +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";
> }
Sounds reasnoable to me.
> >> 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? :)
Dunno, I would need to carefully study the code to have real opinion about the
necessity of buffer check there.
> > - 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.
I see, we can try. I do not expect that ppl are using fwd search via preamble...
Pavel
--
lyx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
