There is no bugzilla entry. I found it from mailing list..
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=117880601303849w=2
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
José Matos wrote:
I agree.
+1
Committed. Was there a bugzilla entry about this? I thought so, but I
don't
find it now.
There is no bugzilla entry. I found it from mailing list..
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel=117880601303849=2
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
José Matos wrote:
> > I agree.
>
> +1
Committed. Was there a bugzilla entry about this? I thought so, but I
don't
find it
Edwin Leuven wrote:
i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
click the button too many times...
I think Ugras is correct. In
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
strange.. nobody complained the code below..
+
moveInTB-setEnabled(form_-allowDemoteCurrentItem(typeCO-currentIndex())
+ moveOutTB-isEnabled()); //means controls are
enabled.
I do ;-) (comments above the code please). And please stick
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the original state from TOC dialog is not possible. Attached patch
is a way of correcting this behaviour. It simply prevents
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
click the button too many times...
I
I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and apply
this patch, it is possible to get such errors *I have tested and found
some). Are you sure that you have cleanly updated to the current svn?
I will
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
It is strictly dialog related problem, therefore I should have put
some function in controller. The place for a flag like demotionEnabled
maybe in TocBackend, but this doesn't remove the necessity of a
controller function. IMHO, the code is cleaner as it is now.
My
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and apply
this patch, it is possible to get such errors *I have tested and found
some). Are you sure that you have cleanly updated to
Umm. let me check, then. How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
Ugras
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and apply
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
--enable-stdlib-debug
Jürgen
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
In my opinion, numbered TOC entries are structural elemens of
Ozgur == Ozgur Ugras BARAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ozgur Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know.
Ozgur Attached is two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents
Ozgur over-demoting and second one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything
Ozgur in TOC. (Abdel, This was what you had
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
Yes.
In my opinion, numbered TOC
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
No need for a patch to test
Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
regards,
ugras
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
--enable-stdlib-debug
Jürgen
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
In my opinion, numbered TOC entries are structural elemens of a
document. Non-numbered ones are used mostly for categorization
elements. Therefore I vote for the first patch.
I vote for the second ;-)
+1
I don't think putting another slider in dialog area is a
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
Maybe my system is pickier (64bit). Anyway, seems your other (TOC backend)
patch is getting more sympathy anyway.
Jürgen
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
Maybe my system is pickier (64bit). Anyway, seems your other (TOC backend)
patch is getting more sympathy
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
So.. It seems there is a consensus on the second approach. (which is
also fine for me). Then, how about puttimg it in svn?
Jean-Marc? José?
Jürgen
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 15:53:53 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
I agree.
+1
JMarc
--
José Abílio
Jürgen == Jürgen Spitzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jürgen Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
So.. It seems there is a consensus on the second approach. (which
is also fine for me). Then, how about puttimg it in svn?
Jürgen Jean-Marc? José?
I agree.
JMarc
José Matos wrote:
I agree.
+1
Committed. Was there a bugzilla entry about this? I thought so, but I don't
find it now.
Jürgen
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
> then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
> when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
> click the button "too many times"...
I think Ugras is
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> strange.. nobody complained the code below..
>
> +
> moveInTB->setEnabled(form_->allowDemoteCurrentItem(typeCO->currentIndex())
> &&
> + moveOutTB->isEnabled()); //means controls are
> enabled.
I do ;-) (comments above the code please). And
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the original state from TOC dialog is not possible. Attached patch
is a way of correcting this behaviour. It simply prevents
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
click the button "too many times"...
I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and apply
this patch, it is possible to get such errors *I have tested and found
some). Are you sure that you have cleanly updated to the current svn?
I will
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
It is strictly dialog related problem, therefore I should have put
some function in controller. The place for a flag like demotionEnabled
maybe in TocBackend, but this doesn't remove the necessity of a
controller function. IMHO, the code is cleaner as it is now.
My
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
>
> One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and apply
> this patch, it is possible to get such errors *I have tested and found
> some). Are you sure that you have cleanly
Umm. let me check, then. How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
Ugras
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> I can't reproduce this. I even tried inline-in command from buffer.
>
> One point is, if you have older versions of toc stuff (pre 18265) and
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
--enable-stdlib-debug
Jürgen
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
In my opinion, numbered TOC entries are structural elemens of
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know.
Ozgur> Attached is two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents
Ozgur> over-demoting and second one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything
Ozgur> in TOC. (Abdel, This was
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
Yes.
In my opinion, numbered TOC
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
Well, I don't know. Please try yourself and let me know. Attached is
two patches: First patch (toc.diff) prevents over-demoting and second
one (TocBackend.diff), puts everything in TOC. (Abdel, This was what
you had asked, isn't it?)
No need for a patch to test
Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
regards,
ugras
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> How can I enable stdlib-debug ?
--enable-stdlib-debug
Jürgen
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > In my opinion, numbered TOC entries are structural elemens of a
> > document. Non-numbered ones are used mostly for categorization
> > elements. Therefore I vote for the first patch.
>
> I vote for the second ;-)
+1
> > I don't think putting another slider in dialog
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
>
> I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
Maybe my system is pickier (64bit). Anyway, seems your other (TOC backend)
patch is getting more sympathy anyway.
Jürgen
On 5/15/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Gosh.. this takes hours to link..
>
> I have tested, but no crashes.. sorry. I will test it again tonight.
Maybe my system is pickier (64bit). Anyway, seems your other (TOC backend)
patch is getting more
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> So.. It seems there is a consensus on the second approach. (which is
> also fine for me). Then, how about puttimg it in svn?
Jean-Marc? José?
Jürgen
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 15:53:53 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> I agree.
+1
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jürgen> Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
>> So.. It seems there is a consensus on the second approach. (which
>> is also fine for me). Then, how about puttimg it in svn?
Jürgen> Jean-Marc? José?
I agree.
JMarc
José Matos wrote:
> > I agree.
>
> +1
Committed. Was there a bugzilla entry about this? I thought so, but I don't
find it now.
Jürgen
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the original state from TOC dialog is not possible. Attached patch
is a way of correcting this behaviour. It simply prevents demoting the
item more than
shouldn't the proper enabled flag be set in the kernel
(bufferview.cpp?) instead of putting this in the controller?
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
+bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
+{
+ return ((kernel().buffer().params().tocdepth -
(*getCurrentTocItem(type)).depth() + 1)0);
+}
On the formal side:
No need for the outer parantheses.
It is strictly dialog related problem, therefore I should have put
some function in controller. The place for a flag like demotionEnabled
maybe in TocBackend, but this doesn't remove the necessity of a
controller function. IMHO, the code is cleaner as it is now.
My question was different,
i probably don't understand you.
i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
click the button too many times...
anyway, just
On 5/14/07, Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
+bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
+{
+ return ((kernel().buffer().params().tocdepth -
(*getCurrentTocItem(type)).depth() + 1)0);
+}
On the
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:47:11PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
On 5/14/07, Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
+bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
+{
+ return
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the original state from TOC dialog is not possible. Attached patch
is a way of correcting this behaviour. It simply prevents demoting the
item more than
shouldn't the proper "enabled" flag be set in the kernel
(bufferview.cpp?) instead of putting this in the controller?
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
When demote button is pressed too many times, TOC item dissapears from
the toc dialog, since it is no longer numbered. Hence, promoting back
to the
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> +bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
> +{
> + return ((kernel().buffer().params().tocdepth -
> (*getCurrentTocItem(type)).depth() + 1)>0);
> +}
On the formal side:
No need for the outer
It is strictly dialog related problem, therefore I should have put
some function in controller. The place for a flag like demotionEnabled
maybe in TocBackend, but this doesn't remove the necessity of a
controller function. IMHO, the code is cleaner as it is now.
My question was different,
i probably don't understand you.
i was thinking that if you create an LFUN_OUTLINE_IN action that you
then associate with the demote button it would automatically be disabled
when demoting is not possible. this way it would not be possible to
click the button "too many times"...
anyway,
On 5/14/07, Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> +bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
> +{
> + return ((kernel().buffer().params().tocdepth -
(*getCurrentTocItem(type)).depth() + 1)>0);
> +}
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:47:11PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> On 5/14/07, Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:19:59PM +0200, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> >> +bool const ControlToc::allowDemoteCurrentItem(size_t type) const
> >> +{
> >> + return
58 matches
Mail list logo
