On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > This should be an updateBufferDependent() and the insets should hide
> > themselves if appropriate. I did this in the old tree and it worked fine.
> > I'll commit this as it is at present however (once I've look
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> This should be an updateBufferDependent() and the insets should hide
> themselves if appropriate. I did this in the old tree and it worked fine.
> I'll commit this as it is at present however (once I've looked through and
> test compiled of course).
Allan,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Attached is the threatened patch removing all those static CB functions from
> FormDocument. Note that I also changed form_document.fd, so a make updatesrc
> in the forms directory is needed also.
It looks from the patch that you should be able to mak
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Attached is the threatened patch removing all those static CB functions from
> FormDocument. Note that I also changed form_document.fd, so a make updatesrc
> in the forms directory is needed also.
>
> There is also a one line change to BufferView_Pimp
Attached is the threatened patch removing all those static CB functions from
FormDocument. Note that I also changed form_document.fd, so a make updatesrc
in the forms directory is needed also.
There is also a one line change to BufferView_Pimpl.C to emit a
hideBufferDependent signal when swich
