Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to 45% - the second minipage can't be seen ??? what do you mean by that? Here all works as expected. I can see the problem Allan was talking about when collapsing

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to 45% - the second minipage can't be seen ??? what do you mean by that? Here all works as expected. I can see the

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to 45% - the second minipage can't be seen ??? what do you mean by that?

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:53:28PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) I must have some dodgy patch in my

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 John Levon wrote: The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) I must have some dodgy patch in my tree... let me see I don't

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 17-Jan-2002 John Levon wrote: The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) I must have

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:32:36PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: BTW, does the InsetERT dialog do anything for you if you change a setting and press apply? works the first time, fails the rest of the time regards john -- Before seeking vengeance, dig two graves. - Chinese proverb

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: [...] I don't see your problem too, but I fixed the problem Allan was seeing with the commit I just sent! You fixed something but I'm not sure if it isn't worse. Sorry, it's not much different to what I was

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: [snip] The one in the footnote seems to always be drawn correctly. The one in the paragraph is a complete mess at times or not drawn at all at other times. It seems to be InsetERT only is major problem with rendering now. Ok I see this too seems to be a

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two minipages are no longer placed in the same row. I don't see this here, sorry! Jug --

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two minipages are no longer placed in the same row. I don't see this here, sorry! A

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though | and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure | left) Change the clock on you box? I don't know if there's that

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:03:53PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: if (!need_break_row !inset_owner ==p.bv-text-status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { Row * prev = p.row-previous(); you might want to look at my bug on this, we still need to finish the audit of bv-text users. I

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) if (!need_break_row !inset_owner ==p.bv-text-status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { Row * prev = p.row-previous(); No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check the main

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:03:53PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: if (!need_break_row !inset_owner == p.bv-text-status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { Row * prev = p.row-previous(); you might want to look at my bug on this, we still need to

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:17:40PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: I suspect another bv-text call somewhere in breakAgainOneRow() or something it calls. http://cvs.koziarski.com/show_bug.cgi?id=34 people are free to remove false positives :) regards john -- Before seeking vengeance, dig two

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:15:08PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check the main LyXText! A comment line should be put there saying so. Maybe the people who currently audit that stuff should put comments on everything non-obvious after they

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:15:08PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check the main LyXText! A comment line should be put there saying so. Maybe the people who currently audit that

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:43:38AM +, John Levon wrote: I'd like that comment to be : Not bad. Andre' -- André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) if (!need_break_row !inset_owner ==p.bv-text-status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { Row * prev = p.row-previous(); No this line is right

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) if (!need_break_row !inset_owner ==p.bv-text-status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { Row *

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two minipages are no longer placed in the

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
when insets are opened and closed. Put the cursor before an inset, open it, put the cursor back in front again. Does the fact the cursor is now about 4 or 5 pixels lower look strange to you also? ## So I'd say bug #174 can be either closed and a new one opened for inset render errors or better

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: >> new doc >> insert minipage >> set to 45% >> position cursor to right of minipage >> insert minipage >> set to 45% >> >> -> the second minipage can't be seen ??? what do you mean by that? Here all works as expected. I can see the problem Allan was talking

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: > >> new doc > >> insert minipage > >> set to 45% > >> position cursor to right of minipage > >> insert minipage > >> set to 45% > >> > >> -> the second minipage can't be seen > > ??? what do you mean by that? Here all works as

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > > >> new doc > > >> insert minipage > > >> set to 45% > > >> position cursor to right of minipage > > >> insert minipage > > >> set to 45% > > >> > > >> -> the second minipage can't be

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:53:28PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) > > It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though > and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) I must have some dodgy patch in my

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 John Levon wrote: >> > The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) >> >> It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though >> and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) > > I must have some dodgy patch in my tree... let me

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > On 17-Jan-2002 John Levon wrote: > > >> > The green trail is the cursor (black/green flash) > >> > >> It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though > >> and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure left) >

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:32:36PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > BTW, does the InsetERT dialog do anything for you if you change a > setting and press apply? works the first time, fails the rest of the time regards john -- "Before seeking vengeance, dig two graves." - Chinese proverb

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: [...] > > I don't see your problem too, but I fixed the problem Allan was seeing with > > the commit I just sent! > > You fixed something but I'm not sure if it isn't worse. Sorry, it's > not much different to

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: [snip] > The one in the footnote seems to always be drawn correctly. The one > in the paragraph is a complete mess at times or not drawn at all at > other times. > > It seems to be InsetERT only is major problem with rendering now. Ok I see this too seems to be

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. > When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two > minipages are no longer placed in the same row. I don't see this here, sorry! Jug --

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > > > Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. > > When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two > > minipages are no longer placed in the same row. > > I don't see this here,

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | It works for me. No idea what you are seeing. I'll try insure though > | and see if says anything but I doubt it. (only 4 hrs of insure > | left) > > Change the clock on you box? I don't know if

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:03:53PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > if (!need_break_row && !inset_owner > ==> && p.bv->text->status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { > Row * prev = p.row->previous(); you might want to look at my bug on this, we still need to finish the audit of

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Juergen Vigna
On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) > > if (!need_break_row && !inset_owner > ==> && p.bv->text->status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { > Row * prev = p.row->previous(); No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:03:53PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > if (!need_break_row && !inset_owner > > ==> && p.bv->text->status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { > > Row * prev = p.row->previous(); > > you might want to look at my bug on

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:17:40PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > I suspect another bv->text call somewhere in breakAgainOneRow() or > something it calls. http://cvs.koziarski.com/show_bug.cgi?id=34 people are free to remove false positives :) regards john -- "Before seeking vengeance, dig two

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:15:08PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: > No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check the main LyXText! A comment line should be put there saying so. Maybe the people who currently audit that stuff should put comments on everything non-obvious after they

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:15:08PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > No this line is right as it is! This should ONLY check the main LyXText! > > A comment line should be put there saying so. Maybe the people who > currently audit

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:43:38AM +, John Levon wrote: > I'd like that comment to be : Not bad. Andre' -- André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > > > That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) > > > > if (!need_break_row && !inset_owner > > ==> && p.bv->text->status() == CHANGED_IN_DRAW) { > > Row * prev = p.row->previous(); >

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > > > > On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > > > > > That line is text.C:484 (currently CVS has this) > > > > > > if (!need_break_row && !inset_owner > > > ==> && p.bv->text->status() ==

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Allan Rae wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Juergen Vigna wrote: > > > > > On 17-Jan-2002 Allan Rae wrote: > > > > > Sorry, the minipages now work almost as correct as they should. > > > When I make the second minipage 45% (instead of 100%) the two > > > minipages are no longer

Re: bug #174

2002-01-17 Thread Allan Rae
s ago and involves the way the baseline (?) seems to change when insets are opened and closed. Put the cursor before an inset, open it, put the cursor back in front again. Does the fact the cursor is now about 4 or 5 pixels lower look strange to you also? ## So I'd say bug #174 can be either closed and a

bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
I've just checked in a fix. Two fixes actually, and one of them I'd have thought we'd hit by now. LyXText::deleteRow() forgot to check refresh_row. I set this to: refresh_row = row_prev ? row_prev : row-next(); since I figure there must be some reason why refresh_row was set and it

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating problem you are seeing? It works fine for me in all sorts of variations -- I wouldn't have checked it in otherwise. The only problem I see is if I collapse the first minipage and have the second set to 45%:

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:59:15AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating problem you are seeing? new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to 45% - the second minipage can't be seen this is

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:59:15AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating problem you are seeing? new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to

bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
I've just checked in a fix. Two fixes actually, and one of them I'd have thought we'd hit by now. LyXText::deleteRow() forgot to check refresh_row. I set this to: refresh_row = row_prev ? row_prev : row->next(); since I figure there must be some reason why refresh_row was set and it

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating problem you are seeing? It works fine for me in all sorts of variations -- I wouldn't have checked it in otherwise. The only problem I see is if I collapse the first minipage and have the second set to 45%:

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:59:15AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating > problem you are seeing? new doc insert minipage set to 45% position cursor to right of minipage insert minipage set to 45% -> the second minipage can't be seen this

Re: bug #174

2002-01-16 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:59:15AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > John, can you give me something more to go on about the updating > > problem you are seeing? > > new doc > insert minipage > set to 45% > position cursor to right of minipage > insert