On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:06:06AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 14 octobre 2017 04:39:49 GMT+02:00, Scott Kostyshak a
> écrit :
> >Are you proposing this patch for 2.3.x? I remember that I could not
> >reproduce the issue on 2.3.x, but I think that others could, right?
>
>
> No, this
Recent eye trouble made it difficult to read black text on a white-ish
screen and I found myself exploring colour schemes with dark
backgrounds. There are some examples on the LyX wiki at
/Tips/ColorSchemes. White text against a blue background has proved helpful.
But there is no built-in way
Am Samstag, 14. Oktober 2017 um 21:09:05, schrieb Kornel Benko
> Am Samstag, 14. Oktober 2017 um 20:38:04, schrieb Uwe Stöhr
> > > Is there some reason we can't use Python 3.5? You bundle this with the
> > > application, right?
> >
> > I tried now the latest Python 3.5 and today's 2.3 branch and
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> This is with gcc 6.4.0. Maybe other versions don't have the issue.
If you disable compiler optimization is the bug still there? P
On 10/14/2017 01:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:30:29PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What happens if you do
Am Samstag, 14. Oktober 2017 um 20:38:04, schrieb Uwe Stöhr
> > Is there some reason we can't use Python 3.5? You bundle this with the
> > application, right?
>
> I tried now the latest Python 3.5 and today's 2.3 branch and get this error:
>
> Generating Additional.lyx
>Traceback (most recen
Is there some reason we can't use Python 3.5? You bundle this with the
application, right?
I tried now the latest Python 3.5 and today's 2.3 branch and get this error:
Generating Additional.lyx
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:/LyXGit/2.3.x/development/cmake/doc/ReplaceValues.py
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:30:29PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > >
> > > What happens if you do
> > >
> > > LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5));
> > >
Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >
> > What happens if you do
> >
> > LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5));
> > string const test = sub.str(5);
> > LYXERR0("test 2: " << test);
>
> The result i
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
> What happens if you do
>
> LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5));
> string const test = sub.str(5);
> LYXERR0("test 2: " << test);
The result is:
BiblioInfo.cpp (252): test 1: %surname%
BiblioInfo.cpp (254): test 2: %surname%
Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 18:14 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 05:06:14PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >
> > I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code.
>
> Here you go (actually, I get this twice):
>
> BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 0: %prename%
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 05:06:14PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code.
Here you go (actually, I get this twice):
BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 0: %prename% {%prefix%[[%prefix% ]]}%surname%
BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 1: %prename%
BiblioI
Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> I think something fishy is occurring here. When removing the debug
> patch
> it doesn't work anymore, with or without the static declaration.
> I am really confused.
I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code.
An
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 02:25:45PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > > > However,
Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > > However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in
> > > constructName
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in
> > constructName() [...] everything is fine. I don't know why the static
> > declaration ca
Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in
> constructName() [...] everything is fine. I don't know why the static
> declaration causes the failure.
Hm. What happens if you use "static lyx::regex" instead o
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 08:17:24AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 22:59 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck:
> > You might also try putting some debugging code into
> > BibTeXInfo::expandFormat. Try putting:
> > LYXERR0(fmt); LYXERR0(ret);
> > at the beginning of the whil
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:40:20PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06:48PM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > I tried to debug this, but when using the debugger the replacements
> > are always correct. So, I think that this is some kind of threading
> > issue and the
Le 14 octobre 2017 04:39:49 GMT+02:00, Scott Kostyshak a
écrit :
>Are you proposing this patch for 2.3.x? I remember that I could not
>reproduce the issue on 2.3.x, but I think that others could, right?
No, this is only related to the new painting scheme in the properpaint branch.
Basically wh
20 matches
Mail list logo
