Le 20/02/2025 à 12:14, José Matos a écrit :
On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 18:51 -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
I don't use minted either, but the patch looks right to me.
Riki
I use minted and the patch does make sense.
The next issue is if we use this idiom elsewhere... because we looking into
On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 18:51 -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> I don't use minted either, but the patch looks right to me.
>
> Riki
I use minted and the patch does make sense.
The next issue is if we use this idiom elsewhere... because we looking into the
parameters and removing some, while a
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:06:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Use a while() loop instead of fighting against for()
In a loop where elements may be removed from a vector, it is dangerous
and weird to decrease the counter so that it can be incremented by the
for() ++i statement later without change. I suspect
On 2/19/25 6:24 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Hi,
Since I am not able to run or even understand a minted test, I'll like
some feedback about this (straightforward?) patch.
I don't use minted either, but the patch looks right to me.
Riki
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
h
