On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:03:48PM +0100, Guillaume M-M wrote:
> Le 05/06/2015 08:14, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:32:03PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> >>On 06/04/2015 07:13 PM, Guillaume M-M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Bad news, it seems to forget that macros can use macros. With the attached
> >>>file the preview is as follows:
> >>>
> >>>\begin{preview}
> >>>\global\long\def\b{\a}
> >>>
> >>>$\b$
> >>>\end{preview}
> >>
> >>I suspect this is why all macros are included.
> >
> >Most probably. This leaves us pretty stuck with the problem caused by
> >having hundreds of macros. I will not commit any change to stable until
> >we find a good solution. After all, this is what already happens now
> >and it is not a regression. I think the complaint is due to the fact
> >that now also the previews get zoomed and this may cause relevant delays,
>
> Enrico mentions a "complaint". There seems to be a misunderstanding. The
> freeze on zoom is a regression in stable, while the time explosion was
> already there. This is only a factual report of the issues trying to be the
> most helpful. The reports are the outcome of my tests of the preview
> mechanism following Enrico's request of having his patch at
> <http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9354> tested.
>
> In truth, I have no interest in full preview, only in the solution to #9354,
> and my tests concluded that there are no immediate issues with his patch,
> while I managed to find other issues---many thanks to Enrico and Jürgen for
> fixing them promptly. Fixing #9354 (preview inset does not work with math
> macros) in 2.1.4 would make the preview mechanism useful again in my
> context, avoiding the performance issues. (Especially because I cannot ask
> my collaborators to compile from git.) Apart from that, only this regression
> regarding the zoom/preview interaction remains regarding the stable branch
> (to summarise the thread, since you probably want to move forward with
> 2.1.4).
>
> After this thread dies off, I may record the remaining important issues in
> the bug tracker, but again please do not regard such reports as complaints!
When you don't speak/write in your native language often you end up
conveying what you are able to and not what you actually mean.
And email doesn't help in this respect.
I didn't want to attach any negative meaning to the word "complaint" and,
morever, maybe I failed to actually properly acknowledge your help in this
matter. Indeed, you made a not so common testing work and helped discovering
issues that were escaping my (deemed) extensive testing.
That said, I was confident in applying all the changes involving only
touching the scripts because they solve some long standing issues without
the risk of introducing more severe issues. I think you tested the patch
for #9354 very well and I now feel confident that it is safe, but it is
the responsibility of the stable maintainer taking a decision about it.
Also take into account that, once the problem of the size explosion in the
presence of hundreds of macros is solved, it will have to be adapted, too.
--
Enrico
