Richard Heck wrote: > The attached addresses http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3650. The > issues were two. (i) When the old inset was erased, the iterator became > invalid, and the attempt to increment it caused an abort; (ii) after > clearing that up, a different abort made it clear that the cursor > position needed to be updated so it wouldn't be past the end of the text. > > Testing requested, as well as two commit OKs if it seems all right.
This is getting more and more a mess. However, I don't have a better solution. We really should clean up this bibitem issue for 1.6. If it's well tested (I don't have the time now), put it in. > NOTE: Some other issues I noticed here, which I'll put in bugzilla if it > seems a good idea. (i) Take the same example file and open it. I get all > labels as [1], at least with the patch. (ii) Put the cursor at the end > and hit return. The new InsetBibitem has label [1] rather than [4], > which is what it seems it should have. Yes, also in 1.4, so it's neither the fault of your patch nor of my previous fix (and it could wait for 1.5.1) > (iii) Change the layout of one of > these paragraphs to Standard. Shouldn't the bibitem be erased? (This > could be handled in checkBiblio without too much effort.) Please no. Enough hacks for now. > Richard Jürgen
