On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:29:01 +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>I don't think it's a real problem with "zombie-like" running xdvi's.
Only minor annoyance.
>1. You can see them.
> You can regularily quit them.
> You can decide yourself when to do so.
Except they decide themselves (they crash with
Arnd Hanses wrote:
>
> On 31 Aug 1999 17:57:55 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>
> >Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >| LaTeX and Xdvi are children of LyX and directed by LyX to the
> >| internally computed hidden tmp-directory. I'm aware of that
> >| effect: If I close a file an
On 31 Aug 1999 17:57:55 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| LaTeX and Xdvi are children of LyX and directed by LyX to the
>| internally computed hidden tmp-directory. I'm aware of that
>| effect: If I close a file and reopen it again, then I have to
>|
Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| LaTeX and Xdvi are children of LyX and directed by LyX to the
| internally computed hidden tmp-directory. I'm aware of that
| effect: If I close a file and reopen it again, then I have to
| close my running Xdvi too, because it is useless now, when using
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> "Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | (Often used instead of/to emulate pipe: Sorry, I'm only a casual
> | programmer, so I've always problems to use the correct terminology.
> | Grateful for any hints.)
>
> Xdvi should just watch the file for changes. I
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (Often used instead of/to emulate pipe: Sorry, I'm only a casual
| programmer, so I've always problems to use the correct terminology.
| Grateful for any hints.)
Xdvi should just watch the file for changes. It might have some
problems when the file is
On 30 Aug 1999 20:48:44 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| So a problem with destroying tmpdir might arise when reloading an
>| already open file (dismissing changes), which would close the buffer
>| and reopen it. Pipelining then to the same (alread
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So a problem with destroying tmpdir might arise when reloading an
| already open file (dismissing changes), which would close the buffer
| and reopen it. Pipelining then to the same (already open) instance of
| Xdvi might confuse it?
What pipelining?
On 30 Aug 1999 14:58:16 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| in buffer.C is a destructor method
>|
>| Buffer::~Buffer()
>| [...]
>| if (!tmppath.empty()) {
>| DestroyBufferTmpDir(tmppath);
>| }
>| [
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| in buffer.C is a destructor method
|
| Buffer::~Buffer()
| [...]
| if (!tmppath.empty()) {
| DestroyBufferTmpDir(tmppath);
| }
| [...]
|
| I'm not sure, only suspect this destructor runs sometim
On 28 Aug 1999 14:28:11 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Now I'm confused. You are now talking about dvi update, right?
>But your patch modified the behaviour of DestroyTmpDir() which is called
>only when LyX is quitting. What problem(s) are you intending to solve?
Well,
it's not difficult to
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> which made xdvi crash. My guess is, sometimes the file is first
> removed/truncated by LyX, then rewritten. A warning to close xdvi,
LyX does not remove/truncate/rewrite dvi files except at the exit time.
It is LaTeX compiler which does the job. In fac
On 12 Aug 1999 16:22:30 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>> The warning recommends to close previewers (XDVI, gv, etc.: They all
>> lock LyX' tmp-files). After closing them, the tmp-files are cleanly
>> removed by LyX.
>
>You are talking about opened files, not file lockings! On OS/2 files
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The "inline" keyword is meaningless since you are using it in *.C
>
> Those are 'static' functions; I'm a bit confused that inlining within a
> module is not possible?
Sorry I was wrong.
> The warning recommends to close previewers (XDVI, gv, etc.: Th
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I've seen often the double cast in the code:
|
| LString foo = LString (bar);
|
| What would be the best coding style in those cases?
LString foo(bar);
Lgb
On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:34:30 +0900, Shigeru Miyata wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I was trying to paste really harmless text (no 'umlauts', etc. this time=
>> )
>> into LyX' main window, while the LaTeX-preamble form popup was open. And=
>> :
>>
>> Click mouse-butt
On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:35:10 +0900, Shigeru Miyata wrote:
Thank you very much for the fast answer; I'm always grateful for
criticism:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> temp = AddName( OnlyPath(file), temp );
>>
>> // Replace spaces with underscores, also in director
On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:34:43 +0900, Shigeru Miyata wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>1. Please do not reformat source code when you are going to take diffs.
I intended to reduce the changes to those really altering the cod base.
Nevertheless I was not very successful not to con
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> temp = AddName( OnlyPath(file), temp );
>
> // Replace spaces with underscores, also in directory
> temp.subst(' ','_');
This is wrong! You must not rename the file you may not be the
creator.
> Note:
> I'm not sure why, but g
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Please do not reformat source code when you are going to take diffs.
Your patch is not readable! (and I cannot comment well.)
2. Please do not use 1.0.3 as the codebase. Lars has already
incorporated
some of the changes you have proposed in the
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was trying to paste really harmless text (no 'umlauts', etc. this time=
> )
> into LyX' main window, while the LaTeX-preamble form popup was open. And=
> :
>
> Click mouse-button2. Crash!
Try to set breakpoint in BufferView::WorkAreaSelection
Hi again,
trying to find bugs in my patch, I was doing my best to make LyX crash in
'gdb'.
Finally I succeeded!
But I was not amused at all (most disappointed) when examining closer what
had happened: As it seems it is unrelated to my patch; yet another xforms
issue. It's confusing; my gues
On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 01:39:25 +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>Better also let path through the underscore '_':
And even better would be better coding style (using some fancy macro):
This is all to be put into filetools.C
--snip-
// Let pass through FRIEND of LaTeX & shell; stop the fo
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 22:11:37 +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>+#define EXTENSION_MARKER '.' /* Let through the 'full-stop' */
[...]
+ inline static
+LString toAsciiAlnum(LString const &string)
+{
+ LString tmp(string);
+ for (int i = 0; i < tmp.length(); i++) {
+
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 23:42:50 +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 22:11:37 +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>
>>+/* non portable EMX C Library fn, should handle DBCS[*] too */
>>+ LString sh = _getname( getenv("EMXSHELL") );
>>+
>
>Looking closer at the patch, I found line
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 22:11:37 +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>+/* non portable EMX C Library fn, should handle DBCS[*] too */
>+ LString sh = _getname( getenv("EMXSHELL") );
>+
Looking closer at the patch, I found line 612 of lyx_cb.C lacks a cast:
+/* non portable EMX C Library
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:33:32 +1000 (GMT+1000), Allan Rae wrote:
>On 30 Jul 1999, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>
>> "Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | The reason for prefering to use a const function and an additional
>> | variable is:
>>
>> As I said below this is a matter of style
On 30 Jul 1999 23:43:09 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| The reason for prefering to use a const function and an additional
>| variable is:
>
>As I said below this is a matter of style.
>
>a) void foo(string &);
>b) string foo(string const &);
>
>I
On 30 Jul 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | The reason for prefering to use a const function and an additional
> | variable is:
>
> As I said below this is a matter of style.
>
> a) void foo(string &);
> b) string foo(string const &);
>
> I lik
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The reason for prefering to use a const function and an additional
| variable is:
As I said below this is a matter of style.
a) void foo(string &);
b) string foo(string const &);
I like b best since it does not change/modify its parameters.
| A real
On 30 Jul 1999 21:57:08 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| 1) Using a const function parameter and an additional variable of class
>| LString. (see above)
>
>I this best.
The reason for prefering to use a const function and an additional
variable is
31 matches
Mail list logo
