On 2012-09-23, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 13.09.2012 11:18, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
you just found some packages to support this character:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/MissingUnicodeCharacters?action=diff#diff1309586810
I tested this and the attached patch works fine. Can this go in or is there
a
That's amusing. This is a patch from Stephan that I backported, and it
looks like Stephan did the backport, which does not help communication.
Le 24/09/2012 16:19, Stephan Witt a écrit :
commit 8169347adafeaece14c8b463add8072c6e9a91a8
Author: Stephan Witt sw...@lyx.org
Date: Sun Sep 23
Le 23/09/2012 23:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is not changing strings, but I wonder whether I should revert
824fe175 (keep undo information after save as...), after seeing the
crashes found by pavel in bug 8342. The undo errors the commit intended
to fix are fixed by the patch to 8342
On 09/23/2012 04:54 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 23/09/12 00:06, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
How many users *compile* anything :)
True. And out of those who do, how many look at the warnings? :)
Personally, I still think that removing warnings in branch matters.
Yes, I think it's worth
On 09/24/2012 10:28 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Finally is it expected that the commits show in only one e-mail
message? Is there a reason to do that instead of two e-mails?
It's mostly a matter of re-writing (or somehow updating) the
email-sending script to do this. I've not had time.
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct? Pavel
Op 24-9-2012 16:28, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef:
That's amusing. This is a patch from Stephan that I backported, and it
looks like Stephan did the backport, which does not help communication.
Just get used to a more advanced form of communication. It is Stephan's
code, which you committed.
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct?
Crushes an unused variable warning.
rh
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c;
On 09/24/2012 02:44 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
rgh...@lyx.org
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
I'm running LyX 2.1.0 SVN on Fedora 17
Are you aware that for long time we use git and SVN is months old codebase?
Pavel
Kornel Benko wrote:
Why not
bool Messages::available(string const ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
Pavel
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
I did this now:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/237cb51fb15fdaa4951f70e393eea0fdfe6392b3/lyxgit
I hope this is OK now.
Looks fine. Thanks for your persistence. Pavel
André Pönitz wrote:
From the docs:
We suggest only using repaint() if you need an immediate repaint, for
example during animation. In almost all circumstances update() is
better, as it permits Qt to optimize for speed and minimize flicker.
The problem is that the speed
Yes. I pulled from git, but the software still identifies itself as 2.1.0
SVN.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
I'm running LyX 2.1.0 SVN on Fedora 17
Are you aware that for long time we use git and SVN is months old codebase?
Pavel
Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
Yes. I pulled from git, but the software still identifies itself as 2.1.0
SVN.
Hummm, I thought we already changed this, will change it now.
Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 21:49 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:
Kornel Benko wrote:
Why not
bool Messages::available(string const ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
Stephan
Stephan Witt wrote:
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 23:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:
Stephan Witt wrote:
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
To avoid other warnings.
The best pattern IMHO is:
bool
On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
I don't know anything about this completion stuff. How do you feel about it?
rh
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:
On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
I don't know anything about this completion stuff. How do you
The table sorting python script discussed on the users' list overwrites
the current file on disk: buffer-write; buffer-export lyxtabsort;
buffer-reload. As Liviu has noted, there is no Undo. But the initial
buffer-write backs up the pre-sort disk file to .lyx~. That makes easy
access to the
On 2012-09-23, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 13.09.2012 11:18, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
>>> you just found some packages to support this character:
>>> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/MissingUnicodeCharacters?action=diff#diff1309586810
>>> I tested this and the attached patch works fine. Can this go in or is
That's amusing. This is a patch from Stephan that I backported, and it
looks like Stephan did the backport, which does not help communication.
Le 24/09/2012 16:19, Stephan Witt a écrit :
commit 8169347adafeaece14c8b463add8072c6e9a91a8
Author: Stephan Witt
Date: Sun Sep 23
Le 23/09/2012 23:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is not changing strings, but I wonder whether I should revert
824fe175 (keep undo information after save as...), after seeing the
crashes found by pavel in bug 8342. The undo errors the commit intended
to fix are fixed by the patch to 8342
On 09/23/2012 04:54 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 23/09/12 00:06, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
How many users *compile* anything :)
True. And out of those who do, how many look at the warnings? :)
Personally, I still think that removing warnings in branch matters.
Yes, I think it's worth
On 09/24/2012 10:28 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Finally is it expected that the commits show in only one e-mail
message? Is there a reason to do that instead of two e-mails?
It's mostly a matter of re-writing (or somehow updating) the
email-sending script to do this. I've not had time.
Stephan Witt wrote:
> -bool Messages::available() const
> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> {
> + (void)c;
> return false;
> }
Why this (void)c; construct? Pavel
Op 24-9-2012 16:28, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef:
That's amusing. This is a patch from Stephan that I backported, and it
looks like Stephan did the backport, which does not help communication.
Just get used to a more advanced form of communication. It is Stephan's
code, which you committed.
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const & c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct?
Crushes an "unused variable" warning.
rh
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
> On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Stephan Witt wrote:
> >> -bool Messages::available() const
> >> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> >> {
> >> + (void)c;
> >>return false;
> >> }
> >
On 09/24/2012 02:44 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
> On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Stephan Witt wrote:
> >> -bool Messages::available() const
> >> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> >> {
Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
> I'm running LyX 2.1.0 SVN on Fedora 17
Are you aware that for long time we use git and SVN is months old codebase?
Pavel
Kornel Benko wrote:
> Why not
> bool Messages::available(string const & ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
Pavel
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> I did this now:
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/237cb51fb15fdaa4951f70e393eea0fdfe6392b3/lyxgit
>
> I hope this is OK now.
Looks fine. Thanks for your persistence. Pavel
André Pönitz wrote:
> >From the docs:
>
> We suggest only using repaint() if you need an immediate repaint, for
> example during animation. In almost all circumstances update() is
> better, as it permits Qt to optimize for speed and minimize flicker.
The problem is that the speed
Yes. I pulled from git, but the software still identifies itself as 2.1.0
SVN.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
> > I'm running LyX 2.1.0 SVN on Fedora 17
>
> Are you aware that for long time we use git and SVN is months old codebase?
>
Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
> Yes. I pulled from git, but the software still identifies itself as 2.1.0
> SVN.
Hummm, I thought we already changed this, will change it now.
Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 21:49 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> Kornel Benko wrote:
>> Why not
>> bool Messages::available(string const & ) { ... }
>
> exactly ;) p
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
Stephan
Stephan Witt wrote:
> I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 23:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>> I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
>
> I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
> why the (void) btw... Pavel
To avoid other warnings.
The best pattern IMHO is:
On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
I don't know anything about this completion stuff. How do you feel about it?
rh
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>>
>>> Are these OK to go in to branch and master?
>>
>> Looks fine if tested ;) Branch is Richard's call.
>>
> I don't know anything about this
The table sorting python script discussed on the users' list overwrites
the current file on disk: buffer-write; buffer-export lyxtabsort;
buffer-reload. As Liviu has noted, there is no Undo. But the initial
buffer-write backs up the pre-sort disk file to .lyx~. That makes easy
access to the
46 matches
Mail list logo