[coverity again] missing move constructors

This one is probably for Guillaume. Coverity complains about missing move constructors for Inset, MathAtom, Mover, SpecializedMover, FileName, InsetMathNest, InsetMathHull. The help text says: "This class does not have a user-written move assignment operator and its copy assignment operator

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : Build branch "master" » ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended #118

Le 25/03/2017 à 14:07, ci-...@inria.fr a écrit : https://ci.inria.fr/lyx/job/build-master-head/job/ubuntu-xenial-qt4-autotools-extended/118/ Christian, did you do something to have it back to normal ? JMarc

Support for python 2 and 3 in lyx2lyx for 2.3

First the good news: after Georg's work we are almost there (99.999%). :-) And now the fine details. I have fixed #9006 that results in lyx2lyx working with python 3 for systems where the system default encoding is not UTF-8. Using the 0.12.0 User Guide as the starting point the only

Re: [LyX/master] Handle properly exception that can be thrown by to_local8bit

Le 28/03/2017 à 11:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Hmm. I must have done something wrong because toSafeFilesystemEncoding() actually works. The attached patch is required on native windows when the tempdir path has unicode characters. The change in Buffer.cpp is required for lyx2lyx. Thanks

Re: [LyX/master] Handle properly exception that can be thrown by to_local8bit

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:51:23AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 28/03/2017 à 11:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > > Hmm. I must have done something wrong because toSafeFilesystemEncoding() > > actually works. The attached patch is required on native windows when > > the tempdir path

Re: Support for python 2 and 3 in lyx2lyx for 2.3

Le 28/03/2017 à 12:43, José Abílio Matos a écrit : Using the 0.12.0 User Guide as the starting point the only differences between the two conversions is that python 2 way gets at some points: \bar default \family default while the python 3 gets \family default \bar default This happens in 12

Re: Support for python 2 and 3 in lyx2lyx for 2.3

On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 15.07.17 WEST Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It looks like something that can be handled by a bisect, either a real > one or a hand-made one where a dichotomy is done on the intermediate > commits. Nah... I prefer to follow Ken Thompson's advice: "When in doubt, use brute

LyX master still not ready for Python 3

As requested by José, I installed Python 3.6.1 and tested today's master with it. As result LyX cannot be started because the reconfiguration fails: 02:05:53.187: Checking whether TeX allows spaces in file names... yes 02:05:53.188: Traceback (most recent call last): 02:05:53.189: File

Re: LyX 2.2.3, Finally?

On 03/28/2017 04:55 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2017-03-28, Richard Heck wrote: >> It looks as if we're now ready for 2.2.3, after some of the recent work. >> Any reason not to freeze strings now? > Yes: > > * Quote styles are missing the "catchy" names from 2.2 and hard to > discern on small

Re: Formal tables

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > The booktabs package produces much cleaner tables than "native" LaTeX > ones, but I wonder why LyX only "half converts" a LaTeX table to formal > style? In the attachment LyX produces the middle table from the

Re: Support for python 2 and 3 in lyx2lyx for 2.3

On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23.57.39 WEST José Abílio Matos wrote: > FWIW the culprit seems to be normalize_font_whitespace in lyx_1_5.py, that > is used for formats 259 and 274. I found the reason. In that function the is a variable called changes that is a dictionary. We access to the list of

Formal tables

The booktabs package produces much cleaner tables than "native" LaTeX ones, but I wonder why LyX only "half converts" a LaTeX table to formal style? In the attachment LyX produces the middle table from the left-hand one, but the right-hand one is what should be produced according to the

Re: Support for python 2 and 3 in lyx2lyx for 2.3

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:43:10AM +0100, José Abílio Matos wrote: > At the same time and do not expect pressure from the users who want to > convert > lyx-0.10 documents so I do no expect that Scott makes this a release blocker > for 2.3. :-D Thanks for the investigation on this issue, José.

LyX 2.2.3, Finally?

It looks as if we're now ready for 2.2.3, after some of the recent work. Any reason not to freeze strings now? Richard

Re: LyX 2.2.3, Finally?

Go ahead. JMarc Le 28 mars 2017 21:00:50 GMT+02:00, Richard Heck a écrit : >It looks as if we're now ready for 2.2.3, after some of the recent >work. >Any reason not to freeze strings now? > >Richard

Re: LyX 2.2.3, Finally?

On 2017-03-28, Richard Heck wrote: > It looks as if we're now ready for 2.2.3, after some of the recent work. > Any reason not to freeze strings now? Yes: * Quote styles are missing the "catchy" names from 2.2 and hard to discern on small screen or for the visually impaired. I like the

Re: cmake failed (solved)

On 2017-03-24, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Freitag, 24. März 2017 um 16:17:21, schrieb Guenter Milde > >> On 2017-03-24, Kornel Benko wrote: >> > Am Freitag, 24. März 2017 um 11:28:41, schrieb Guenter Milde >> > >> >> CMake Error at