"Dekel" == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel No, these changes are the ones who fix the bug (the bug is
Dekel caused by the
lv_- getLyXFunc()-Dispatch(LFUN_REF_BACK) call in
lv_- FormRef::updateRefs when
Dekel the stack (backstack) is not empty).
OK, then I guess you can indeed apply
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> No, these changes are the ones who fix the bug (the bug is
Dekel> caused by the
lv_-> getLyXFunc()->Dispatch(LFUN_REF_BACK) call in
lv_-> FormRef::updateRefs when
Dekel> the stack (backstack) is not empty).
OK, then I guess you can
"Dekel" == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:50AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel wrote:
I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a
"side-effect" or is it that you do not want to separate the patch
in two? We already had one new bug in
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Dekel http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
Hmm, is the important part of the patch the use of paragraph id, along
with the small cjhanges in Formref::updateBrowser?
The main part of the patch
"Dekel" == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel wrote:
Dekel http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
Hmm, is the important part of the patch the use of paragraph id,
along with the small
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:47:25PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Dekel" == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel wrote:
Dekel http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
Hmm, is the
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:50AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel> wrote:
>> I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a
>> "side-effect" or is it that you do not want to separate the patch
>> in two? We already had
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Dekel> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
>
> Hmm, is the important part of the patch the use of paragraph id, along
> with the small cjhanges in Formref::updateBrowser?
The main part of the
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel> wrote:
Dekel> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
>> Hmm, is the important part of the patch the use of paragraph id,
>> along with
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:47:25PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dekel> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> Dekel> wrote:
> Dekel> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg18611.html
>
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars So you want untested features added to the stable branch...
Lars I'll leave the decision with Jean-Marc, but I am not overly
Lars positive.
I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a "side-effect"
or is it that you do
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:50AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a "side-effect"
or is it that you do not want to separate the patch in two? We already
had one new bug in 1.1.6fix1, and I really do not want to see another
one!
It is
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> So you want untested features added to the stable branch...
Lars> I'll leave the decision with Jean-Marc, but I am not overly
Lars> positive.
I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a "side-effect"
or is it
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:50AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I'm a bit unsure too. Dekel, is the bookmark code only a "side-effect"
> or is it that you do not want to separate the patch in two? We already
> had one new bug in 1.1.6fix1, and I really do not want to see another
> one!
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
| Any comments?
Apply only to head.
The patch (the bookmarks patch) fixes the bug that reported by Amir,
so it should
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
| Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
| | Any comments?
|
| Apply only to head.
|
| The patch (the bookmarks
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
| Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
|
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
> | Any comments?
>
> Apply only to head.
The patch (the bookmarks patch) fixes the bug that reported by Amir,
so it
Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
| > | Any comments?
| >
| > Apply only to head.
|
| The patch (the
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:52:41PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | > Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
| Any comments?
Apply only to head.
Lgb
Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I would like to apply this patch to HEAD and to 1.1.6 branch.
| Any comments?
Apply only to head.
Lgb
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:00:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Me, I like 1 best. But we'll still run into problems when navigating between
labels if the labels are in different buffers. Ideally, the popup should know
whether the buffers are related (share a common parent). If they do, stay
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:00:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Me, I like 1 best. But we'll still run into problems when navigating between
> labels if the labels are in different buffers. Ideally, the popup should know
> whether the buffers are related (share a common parent). If they do,
Ahhh! I _think_ I understand... perhaps...
This feels like the popup is recieving a signal that the buffer has changed.
In fact, I'm sure that's what is happening.
If the buffer changes, then a signal "updateBufferDependent" is emitted into
the ether. This signal is connected to a slot
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Dekel, will this have been fixed by your recent patch? Perhaps you'd care to
comment?
Don't try to blame me. It is your fault.
The problem is that when a label is selected in the browser, we call to
Dispatch(LFUN_REF_BACK) (in
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the buffer
has changed and so the popup should be closed.
Since now the references dialog closes when changing buffers, it is not
possible to add references to
On Tuesday 23 January 2001 12:43, Dekel Tsur wrote:
Dekel, will this have been fixed by your recent patch? Perhaps you'd
care to comment?
Don't try to blame me. It is your fault.
Hey, hey, hey! I blamed nobody! So, I'll start now by saying, "It's all my
fault. Everything is my fault. O
On Tuesday 23 January 2001 12:51, Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the
buffer
has changed and so the popup should be closed.
Since now the references dialog closes when
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the buffer
has changed and so the popup should be closed.
Since now the references dialog closes
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:23:05AM -0500, Amir Karger wrote:
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I add references to
labels in different files all the time. Yes, I have to reopen the dialog,
but I've been hitting OK instead of Apply most of the time anyway, because I
tend to
Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:23:05AM -0500, Amir Karger wrote:
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I add references to
labels in different files all the time. Yes, I have to reopen the dialog,
but I've been hitting OK instead of Apply most of the time
Ahhh! I _think_ I understand... perhaps...
This feels like the popup is recieving a signal that the buffer has changed.
In fact, I'm sure that's what is happening.
If the buffer changes, then a signal "updateBufferDependent" is emitted into
the ether. This signal is connected to a slot
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Dekel, will this have been fixed by your recent patch? Perhaps you'd care to
> comment?
Don't try to blame me. It is your fault.
The problem is that when a label is selected in the browser, we call to
Dispatch(LFUN_REF_BACK) (in
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the buffer
> has changed and so the popup should be closed.
Since now the references dialog closes when changing buffers, it is not
possible to add references to
On Tuesday 23 January 2001 12:43, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > Dekel, will this have been fixed by your recent patch? Perhaps you'd
> > care to comment?
> Don't try to blame me. It is your fault.
Hey, hey, hey! I blamed nobody! So, I'll start now by saying, "It's all my
fault. Everything is my
On Tuesday 23 January 2001 12:51, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the
buffer
> > has changed and so the popup should be closed.
>
> Since now the references dialog closes
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:16:57AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > In this case, updateSlot is being passed "true", telling it that the buffer
> > has changed and so the popup should be closed.
>
> Since now the references dialog
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:23:05AM -0500, Amir Karger wrote:
> Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I add references to
> labels in different files all the time. Yes, I have to reopen the dialog,
> but I've been hitting OK instead of Apply most of the time anyway, because I
> tend
Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:23:05AM -0500, Amir Karger wrote:
> > Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I add references to
> > labels in different files all the time. Yes, I have to reopen the dialog,
> > but I've been hitting OK instead of Apply most of the
40 matches
Mail list logo
