On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 08:45:26AM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > So I propose to remove the line
> >
> > setChange(0, Change::INSERTED);
>
> But then you have to check if bug 1827 doesn't come back.
>
> Jürgen
I have the line deleted, and bug 1827 (according to t
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 20:26 +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > No it is not. The attached is (cursed evo interface!)
>
> Yes, that's better :-)
> Works for me, from a quick test.
Do you think it is tested enough to go into 1.5?
Attached the version with relevant comme
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:29:02PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > - if (start == end || !par_.isChanged(start, end - 1))
> > + if (start == end || !par_.isChanged(start, end))
>
> Are you sure this is the right patch?
No it is not. The attached is (curs
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> - if (start == end || !par_.isChanged(start, end - 1))
> + if (start == end || !par_.isChanged(start, end))
Are you sure this is the right patch?
Jürgen
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> No it is not. The attached is (cursed evo interface!)
Yes, that's better :-)
Works for me, from a quick test.
Jürgen
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 12:22 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 10:55 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > > > So I propose to remove the line
> > > > >
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 10:55 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > > So I propose to remove the line
> > > >
> > > > setChange(0, Change::INSERTED);
> > >
> > > But then you have
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > So I propose to remove the line
> > >
> > > setChange(0, Change::INSERTED);
> >
> > But then you have to check if bug 1827 doesn't come back.
>
> It probably could even be r
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > So I propose to remove the line
> >
> > setChange(0, Change::INSERTED);
>
> But then you have to check if bug 1827 doesn't come back.
It probably could even be removed (I don't like it either).
However, while testing if bug 1823 will be revi
Am Montag, 13. März 2006 08:40 schrieb Martin Vermeer:
> Would it be possible to simply disable DESM/DEPM when CT is on, so the
> one cannot subvert the other? Would save us a lot of heartache.
I think it would already help much if DESM/DEPM would only remove INSERTED
blanks, leave DELETED ones a
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> So I propose to remove the line
>
> setChange(0, Change::INSERTED);
But then you have to check if bug 1827 doesn't come back.
Jürgen
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 08:13 +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > What was the original reason for introducing it?
> > Can we get rid of it?
>
> It's not my doing. It's this:
>
> Log message:
> (Johnathan Burchill): change tracker fixes (bug 1827)
>
> Bugs:
> htt
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> What was the original reason for introducing it?
> Can we get rid of it?
It's not my doing. It's this:
Log message:
(Johnathan Burchill): change tracker fixes (bug 1827)
Bugs:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1827
But in general, change tracking and DESM/D
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 08:52 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> This fixes the non-existent change bar in case only the paragraph break
> has been changed. From a bug report by Jürgen (under bugzilla 880, but
> see also 1254-1255), thanks.
Jürgen, about the routine stripLeadingSpaces in paragraph.C: co
This fixes the non-existent change bar in case only the paragraph break
has been changed. From a bug report by Jürgen (under bugzilla 880, but
see also 1254-1255), thanks.
If I hear no objections this goes in presently.
- Martin
Index: rowpainter.C
===
15 matches
Mail list logo
