Andreas Vox wrote:
> I think the
>
> void method() {
> if (in_method) return;
> in_method = true;
> // do something
> in_method = false;
> }
>
> pattern is quite simple and safe. It just protects the method against
> involuntary indirect recursive calls.
I agree entirely
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andreas Vox wrote:
>
> I'm just
> thinking of the future when we have multiple LyX windows, each with their
> own set of dialogs.
>
> One improvement over your original patch would be to make 'showing' a
> member of the src/frontends/Dialogs
Andreas Vox wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> Question: do you need to protect the call to "find_or_build"?
>
> Probably find_or_build needs to be protected from being called
> while a second show() hasn't finished yet. Maybe not.
> Doesn't matter because you have to pr
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Question: do you need to protect the call to "find_or_build"?
Probably find_or_build needs to be protected from being called
while a second show() hasn't finished yet. Maybe not.
Doesn't matter because you have to prevent the following call
to dialo
Andreas Vox wrote:
>> It seems to me that the global 'bool showing' should actually be a
>> one-per-dialog variable.
> ...
>> Do I miss anything?
>>
> The "showing" flag only protects the call to show() itself, therefore it
> should be named "opening".
> The dialog is shown between the call to show
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that the patch should be committed as it is, although it has
> enabled Andreas to work out what was going wrong --- good detective work,
> Andreas!
Thanks! :-)
>
> It seems to me that the global 'bool showing' should actually be a
>
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
>> > The attached patch just ignores subsequent calls to show if the old
>> > one isn't finished yet.
>>
>> I think this is pretty much the right thing to do.
>
> So should this patch be committed?
I don't think that the patch should be committed a
John Levon wrote:
> > The attached patch just ignores subsequent calls to show if the old one
> > isn't finished yet.
>
> I think this is pretty much the right thing to do.
So should this patch be committed?
Jürgen
BTW I think valgrind's Helgrind seems to be useful to track down such
problems.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:55:34AM +0100, Andreas Vox wrote:
> The attached patch just ignores subsequent calls to show if the old one
> isn't finished yet.
I think this is pretty much the right thing to do. In the general sense
we can be half-initialised during show, so if we enter the event lo
Hi all!
I added some debug output at the start and end of the Dialogs::show()
method.
This is what I got before, with the testfile from the bugreport:
Dialogs::show(citation
Dialogs::show(citation
Dialogs::show(citation
Dialogs::show citation)
Dialogs::show citation)
Dialogs::show citation)
Dialo
10 matches
Mail list logo
