On 09/15/2011 07:48 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
I agree, I like Dimitar's feature. I don't want to make it hard to use, just
more obvious that the user should be careful.
One solution would be to just rename "Various" to "Advanced" which
implies that these are not your regular "basic" settin
[...]
>
> Now done. Does the non-GUI option override the filetype run command? I
> mentioned keybinding in the item because it's more flexible as a different
> command.
There is actually no distinction between filetype and non-filetype commands.
They override based on their position in the menu,
Le 15/09/2011 10:21, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:16:11 +0200, Colomban wrote:
>
>> Le 15/09/2011 02:13, Lex Trotman a écrit :
>>> On 15 September 2011 09:59, Matthew Brush
>>> wrote:
On 09/14/2011 07:38 AM, nt...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>
> ---
>
Le 15/09/2011 16:48, Nick Treleaven a écrit :
> --- On Wed, 14/9/11, Colomban Wendling wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> The dangerous settings are gio_unsafe_save_backup,
>>> use_gio_unsafe_file_saving and use_safe_file_saving,
>> and IMHO their
>>> names are quite indicative. Everything else is
>> harmless
Le 15/09/2011 19:59, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:45:25 +0100 (BST)
> Nick Treleaven wrote:
>
>> I've found a bug when changing a various pref setting in the prefs
>> dialog, then cancelling the dialog without applying the changes.
>> Next time the dialog is shown the edited
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:45:25 +0100 (BST)
Nick Treleaven wrote:
> I've found a bug when changing a various pref setting in the prefs
> dialog, then cancelling the dialog without applying the changes.
> Next time the dialog is shown the edited values are still present.
You are right, the problem i
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:45:25 +0100 (BST)
Nick Treleaven wrote:
> I've found a bug when changing a various pref setting in the prefs
> dialog, then cancelling the dialog without applying the changes.
> Next time the dialog is shown the edited values are still present.
Yes, for the integer values.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:30:44 +0200
Colomban Wendling wrote:
> > What are the problems with changing use_safe_file_saving? I don't see
> > how the previous value may affect anything.
>
> As you say yourself below, it's a "dangerous" setting because it changes
> the way the file saving works, and
Hi,
I've found a bug when changing a various pref setting in the prefs dialog, then
cancelling the dialog without applying the changes. Next time the dialog is
shown the edited values are still present.
Could cause the user to then apply the unwanted changes without realizing, so
it's quite a n
--- On Thu, 15/9/11, Lex Trotman wrote:
> So it was late at night and I never actually said what I
> meant, can't
> you read my mind?
I realized later you might want the TODO changed, see below.
> >> > + o (filetype-independent run
> command &
> >> keybinding)
> >>
> >> This only needs a
--- On Wed, 14/9/11, Colomban Wendling wrote:
> > Nick Treleaven
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think there should be a clear warning about
> changing the new
> >> various prefs - e.g. a user might enable
> use_safe_file_saving and
> >> then run into problems.
> >
> > What are the problems with changing
[...]
>>Yes for C, but C++ also needs size_t defined, and its moving towards
>>C++11 so things are likely to be changing.
>
> Ah, yeah. I completely ignored C++ again. This is even more scary than
> C :).
>
Relax, now I check all it does is move the C definition into the
namespace std. It is *req
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:52:38 +1000, Lex wrote:
>2011/9/15 Enrico Tröger :
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:01:55 +1000, Lex wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 September 2011 18:50, Thomas Martitz
>>> wrote:
Am 15.09.2011 02:39, schrieb Matthew Brush:
>
> What I'd like to know is where is size_t defined? Ac
2011/9/15 Enrico Tröger :
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:01:55 +1000, Lex wrote:
>
>>On 15 September 2011 18:50, Thomas Martitz
>> wrote:
>>> Am 15.09.2011 02:39, schrieb Matthew Brush:
What I'd like to know is where is size_t defined? According to
what I've read, it's supposed to be in s
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:01:55 +1000, Lex wrote:
>On 15 September 2011 18:50, Thomas Martitz
> wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2011 02:39, schrieb Matthew Brush:
>>>
>>> What I'd like to know is where is size_t defined? According to
>>> what I've read, it's supposed to be in stddef.h but I can't find it
>>> any
On 15 September 2011 18:50, Thomas Martitz
wrote:
> Am 15.09.2011 02:39, schrieb Matthew Brush:
>>
>> What I'd like to know is where is size_t defined? According to what I've
>> read, it's supposed to be in stddef.h but I can't find it anywhere in GNU
>> libc downloaded the other day.
>>
>
> Shou
Am 15.09.2011 02:39, schrieb Matthew Brush:
What I'd like to know is where is size_t defined? According to what
I've read, it's supposed to be in stddef.h but I can't find it
anywhere in GNU libc downloaded the other day.
Should be (also) in string.h, since that's what strlen() returns.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:16:11 +0200, Colomban wrote:
>Le 15/09/2011 02:13, Lex Trotman a écrit :
>> On 15 September 2011 09:59, Matthew Brush
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2011 07:38 AM, nt...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
---
Add ntrel's changes for 0.21.
>>> [...]
+
18 matches
Mail list logo
