LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Joost Verburg
Hi, The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line 1057) does not return a value. Joost

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Joost Verburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line 1057) does not return a value. Does it work now? I wonder why my compiler did not complain. JMarc

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
On 09/10/2008 16:48, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Joost Verburg[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line 1057) does not return a value. Does it work now? I wonder why my compiler did not complain. Hum, it seems that we fixed

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hum, it seems that we fixed that at the same time (I simply ignored the conflict and didn't understand why there was only my change in there). Anyway, I think your fix was wrong, wasn't it? You are completely right indeed. Thanks. JMarc

LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Joost Verburg
Hi, The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line 1057) does not return a value. Joost

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line > 1057) does not return a value. Does it work now? I wonder why my compiler did not complain. JMarc

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
On 09/10/2008 16:48, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Joost Verburg<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The current trunk does not compile. parse_geometry is LyX.cpp (line 1057) does not return a value. Does it work now? I wonder why my compiler did not complain. Hum, it seems that we

Re: LyX.cpp compile error

2008-10-09 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hum, it seems that we fixed that at the same time (I simply ignored > the conflict and didn't understand why there was only my change in > there). Anyway, I think your fix was wrong, wasn't it? You are completely right indeed. Thanks. JMarc