Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Index: frontends/LyXView.C
===================================================================
--- frontends/LyXView.C (revision 14813)
+++ frontends/LyXView.C (working copy)
@@ -139,22 +139,19 @@
work_area_->bufferView().setBuffer(b);
- if (work_area_->bufferView().buffer())
- {
+ if (work_area_->bufferView().buffer()) {
// Buffer-dependent dialogs should be updated or
// hidden. This should go here because some dialogs (eg
ToC)
// require bv_->text.
getDialogs().updateBufferDependent(true);
+ connectBuffer(*work_area_->bufferView().buffer());
+ setLayout(work_area_->bufferView().firstLayout());
}
updateMenubar();
updateToolbars();
updateLayoutChoice();
updateWindowTitle();
- if (b) {
- connectBuffer(*b);
- setLayout(work_area_->bufferView().firstLayout());
- }
redrawWorkArea();
}
This looks wrong (the rest looks OK). Do you know that b !=
work_area_->bufferView().buffer() is possible even after a
work_area_->bufferView().setBuffer(b)?
This was indeed the case before my patch but look also at my
BufferView_pimp change.
They do only change the behaviour if quitting == true.
This plus my older changes to BufferView::setBuffer(), please read that
method and I think you will understand.
b !=
work_area_->bufferView().buffer() is still possible.
No, they may differ only if b == 0 which means that we are killing the
buffer.
BTW, it would be nice
if you could do your diffs with function names (-p argument of diff).
I'll try to read the TortoiseSVN doc to do that.
I've tested this patch with a lot of buffer switching and deletion.
It may work, but I still think that the logic above is wrong. You are going
to call connectBuffer and setLayout with an already connected buffer when b
== 0.
No, when b==0, BufferView::setBuffer() will switch to the first
available buffer in the bufferlist.
That may do no harm, but is AFAIK not necessary, and makes the code
harder to understand.
I agree that it is hard to understand and the main reason is that
setBuffer(0) for killing a buffer is not a good API. I'll try to clean
up that when I get some time.
Is that any clearer?
Abdel.
