> "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 i
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
> >>
> "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 t
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 pa
> "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
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
> "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 tha
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.
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 bo
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:
| 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, sta
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 ti
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 t
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 clos
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 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.
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 labe
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 F
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 "update
I'm using 1.1.6, but I'm pretty sure the problem also occurred once when I
was using the early June 1.1.6cvs. Last time I thought it was a fluke, but
now it's happening again.
My main THESIS.lyx file includes a bunch of files. Each of those has figures
in it, and the figures have labels. I'm in o
21 matches
Mail list logo
