Am 14.09.2022 um 20:17 schrieb Enrico Forestieri :
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:44:52PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>
>> Only a suggestion: I would simply check for "-synctex=" rather than
>> "--synctex=1" because the double dash is optional and any value
>> different from 0 would do (I
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:44:52PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> Only a suggestion: I would simply check for "-synctex=" rather than
> "--synctex=1" because the double dash is optional and any value
> different from 0 would do (I don't think someone would specify it).
I did that at
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>
> Am 13.08.2022 um 17:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 02:41:30AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> 2)
> >>> The LFUN_FORWARD_SEARCH implementation relies on the correct check in
> >>> getStatus. The
Am 13.08.2022 um 17:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 02:41:30AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> 2)
>>> The LFUN_FORWARD_SEARCH implementation relies on the correct check in
>>> getStatus. The patch adds the explicit check for presence of current
>>> buffer and active
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 02:41:30AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > 2)
> > The LFUN_FORWARD_SEARCH implementation relies on the correct check in
> > getStatus. The patch adds the explicit check for presence of current
> > buffer and active output_sync state. Regarding the latter I???m not sure
Am 13.08.2022 um 02:41 schrieb Enrico Forestieri mailto:for...@lyx.org>>:
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently had a discussion on lyx-users regarding synctex (Subject:
>> Syncing skim with LyX) which lead me to the attached patch to
Am 13.08.2022 um 02:41 schrieb Enrico Forestieri :
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently had a discussion on lyx-users regarding synctex (Subject:
>> Syncing skim with LyX) which lead me to the attached patch to improve
>> the usability
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I recently had a discussion on lyx-users regarding synctex (Subject:
> Syncing skim with LyX) which lead me to the attached patch to improve
> the usability of the document setting in GuiDocument::outputModule.
>
> I
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:37:50PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
> >> 1)
> >> AFAICS the synctex activation is possible for more than pfdlatex output
> >> only. I???ve tried dvi, luatex and xetex and all of them work for me. So
> >> I???ve changed the check in BufferParams::writeLaTeX to use
> >>
Am 11.08.2022 um 09:37 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
>
Thanks for having a look at it.
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> 1)
>> AFAICS the synctex activation is possible for more than pfdlatex output
>> only. I???ve tried dvi, luatex and xetex and all of them work for
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
> 1)
> AFAICS the synctex activation is possible for more than pfdlatex output only.
> I???ve tried dvi, luatex and xetex and all of them work for me. So I???ve
> changed the check in BufferParams::writeLaTeX to use
Hi all,
I recently had a discussion on lyx-users regarding synctex (Subject: Syncing
skim with LyX) which lead me to the attached patch to improve the usability of
the document setting in GuiDocument::outputModule.
I want to be sure the patch is an improvement. Therefor I ask you for comments.
12 matches
Mail list logo
