Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:15:06AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The subject says it all.
I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect (hope)
that I will have no objection.
The BufferView_pimpl was there to prevent excessive us of #include
in
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:15:06AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> The subject says it all.
>
> I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect (hope)
> that I will have no objection.
The BufferView_pimpl was there to prevent excessive us of #include
in BufferVie
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
| > The subject says it all.
| >
|
| Hum, this was a brawn paper patch. I forgot to remove bv_ member...
I didn't even notice. And since the patch was not installed it doesn't
really count as a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The subject says it all.
|
| I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect
| (hope) that I will have no objection.
I have no objections per se. But I'll look through the patch anyway.
One note thou
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
| > The subject says it all.
| >
|
| Hum, this was a brawn paper patch. I forgot to remove bv_ member...
I didn't even notice. And since the patch was not installed it doesn't
really count as a brown paper bag patch.
| H
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The subject says it all.
|
| I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect
| (hope) that I will have no objection.
I have no objections per se. But I'll look through the patch anyway.
One note though: The pimpl was originally a
I wonder if this is correct and if it makes any sense.
It certainly looks correct to me (seems to run correctly as well), so
am committing it. Are there any hidden gotchas with theCoords?
(Btw. this saves about 10k from a stripped image)
Index: src/BufferView_pimpl.C
===
Angus Leeming wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
By the way, could you explain me the rationale behind the
BufferView_pimpl class? I cannot see any advantage of duplicating the
Bufferview interface and I am very tempted to merge the two.
The Pimpls in the src dir
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, could you explain me the rationale behind the
> BufferView_pimpl class? I cannot see any advantage of duplicating the
> Bufferview interface and I am very tempted to merge the two.
The Pimpls in the src directory
the bufferview reference in LyXView...
By the way, could you explain me the rationale behind the
BufferView_pimpl class? I cannot see any advantage of duplicating the
Bufferview interface and I am very tempted to merge the two.
Abdel.
Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
> I found the problem.
Cannot reproduce any crash now. Thanks.
Juergen.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> What do you drink (or take) besides the bear?
You do not want to know.
> > You can try to rewrite that line manually
>
> I'll try tomorrow.
You don't have to. I found the problem. It is not a compiler bug.
Committing a fix later tonight.
Best
Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
> See line 119 in undo_funcs.C. That's the line that
> will crash. I tried upgrading the compiler, even started compiling gcc
> from cvs to check, but unfortunately by accident totally unrelated to
> the number of beers we had, the net effect was that glibc was hosed,
> a
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> You are aware that these are still present? Note that they do not occur with
> 1.3.3cvs.
All of these crash if you do this in a document with only one paragrph.
However, all of them work if you do in a document with more than one
paragraph.
I lo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Undo cleaned up. It seems to work pretty well now.
You are aware that these are still present? Note that they do not occur with
1.3.3cvs.
Regards,
Jürgen.
Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 20:44 schrieb Juergen Spitzmueller:
> Always start with a new document...
>
> - Insert
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:07:35PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Yes John you are right and I see you're on the right trace just go
> on with your investigation.
Well I've just hacked out all the direct update() calls, and things are
breaking in a spectacular fashion :)
john
John Levon wrote:
[snip]
Perhaps you're referring to insettext/tabular specific code that
decides which cells needs updating ? But that's not related to
redrawings really, it's more a matter of rebreaking etc. (and it's
broken in several circumstances)
Yes John you are right and I see you're on th
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:56:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I was asking whether such code exists.
I do not believe it does.
> Probably. But replacing it with a single one probably won't work together
> with the current cleverness.
I don't know what this "cleverness" is. Starting a redraw
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 04:48:35PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > fancy_computation();
>
> where is this code ?
I was asking whether such code exists.
> Given that opening an inset causes 4 actual redraws + exposes, I think
> looking at that would be a more obvious way to go !
Probably. But
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Currently we spend some effort to figure out which part of the screen needs
> a redraw. This computation costs time.
I am deeply dubious about this. Do you have some proof ?
"Working it out" mostly consists of holding a y value, a
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:31:11PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Would that mean (almost) no effort is spent to "be clever" in this case?
>
> I don't understand your question here?
Currently we spend some effort to figure out which part of the screen needs
a redraw. This c
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Would that mean (almost) no effort is spent to "be clever" in this case?
I don't understand your question here?
Jug
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mitterstrich 151/A
I-39050
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 04:24:01PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > So if you think you have the ultimate solution just try it out ;)
>
> I will !
Good boy.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:18:24PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> There are a lot of different situations when we have "wrong redraws" if
> we don't do the double draws. I know this because I tried to remove them
Then we should make the effort *now* to fix this properly, I think. I
can understand
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Well this is easy enough to try just forget about the "inteligent"
> redraw and set the update always to "NEED_FULL_REDRAW" and you'll
> see the difference.
Would that mean (almost) no effort is spent to "be clever" in this case?
An
John Levon wrote:
This just sounds like bugs to me, and several redraws (did you know each
character press sends redraws twice even in a normal par ?) is not the
correct solution. Do you mean cursor droppings ?
There are a lot of different situations when we have "wrong redraws" if
we don't do the
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Face it: Full redraw _is_ faster. This might have changed over time,
though, but it is the current state.
Well this is easy enough to try just forget about the "inteligent"
redraw and set the update always to "NEED_FULL_REDRAW" and you'll
see the difference.
Jug
--
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:46:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Face it: Full redraw _is_ faster. This might have changed over time,
> though, but it is the current state.
This is something of a silly thing to say. What you're saying is :
"Full redraw of an insettabular would be faster than par
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:23:54AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> >400 bv->update(text, BufferView::SELECT | BufferView::FITCUR);
> >401 text->toggleFree(font, toggleall);
> >402 bv->update(text, BufferView::SELECT | BufferView::FITCUR |
> >BufferView::CHANG
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> >No. It doesn't have multicols and fixed width columns and a few other bells
> >an whistles.
>
> Well then I just don't have to test this, as if I would have an
> InsetTabular with that restrictions I also could just do a "full redra
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:52:32AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
PS: Cut&Paste&press C-M on this to create the math tabular.
$\begin{tabular}{}
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{tabular}$
??? I would like to try that but I don'
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:23:54AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> I explain you also why one update won't work because then we would have
> to do "full redraw" as Andre tell's us always. I think that full redraw
> was normal at the beginning, but it was (and IMO it still would be) way
> too slow whe
John Levon wrote:
This looks to be very silly indeed, so I guess I'm missing something.
Why are we calling update(text) directly several times for one "lfun" ?
Can we not just post the update, and then call it *once* at the end of
handling the lfun (and at the end of handleKeypress and a couple of
This looks to be very silly indeed, so I guess I'm missing something.
Why are we calling update(text) directly several times for one "lfun" ?
Can we not just post the update, and then call it *once* at the end of
handling the lfun (and at the end of handleKeypress and a couple of
other spots I gue
open_new_inset deletes the new inset if it can not be inserted, and the
handler for LFUN_TABULAR_INSET does it again. Welcome to the swamp of
undefined behaviour...
*sigh*
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:44:47PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Can we not reconcile the two by having a LyXText::dispatch, but move
> lfunAppendix out of LyXText. Ie, it becomes a function that takes a LyXText
> argument. You could shove this new function into text_funcs.[Ch].
The function c
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 02:09:22PM +0200, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> So you really think inserting something in a LyXText should be handled by
> the BufferView?
Btw: the patch changes the originally public toggleAppendix into a
private lfunAppendix. So this looks like better encapsulation that is n
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I'd like to move "text related stuff" from BufferView to LyXText.
> | Attached patch creates a dispatch() for LyXText and moves the handling of
> | LFUN_APPENDIX to LyXText.
> >
On Monday 19 August 2002 1:00 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I'd like to move "text related stuff" from BufferView to LyXText.
> | Attached patch creates a dispatch() for LyXText and moves the handling of
> | LFUN_APPENDIX to LyXText.
> |
> | Good/ba
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'd like to move "text related stuff" from BufferView to LyXText.
| Attached patch creates a dispatch() for LyXText and moves the handling of
| LFUN_APPENDIX to LyXText.
>
| Good/bad idea? Other comments?
I am working/aiming to make LyXText _a lot_ sm
I'd like to move "text related stuff" from BufferView to LyXText.
Attached patch creates a dispatch() for LyXText and moves the handling of
LFUN_APPENDIX to LyXText.
Good/bad idea? Other comments?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:55:46AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Because of that?
> http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/024.htm
oh, ok, what kde does everywhere. fair enough.
regards
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness. May I be
forever marked as such.
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Why do we have a pimpl for BufferView ?
Because of that?
http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/024.htm
Actually, this is the kind of cases where pimpl is IMO useful. The
places where is is wrong are Menubar and Toolbar, and I have to admit
that I
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:07:11AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > Because LyX has reached puberty and now has acne.
>
> bah, a joke isn't funny when you make it twice.
>
> Oh, it's friday
Damn, that's right! I was not only agreeing with you but saying
ther
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:07:11AM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> Because LyX has reached puberty and now has acne.
bah, a joke isn't funny when you make it twice.
Oh, it's friday
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness. May I be
forever marked as such.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, John Levon wrote:
> Why do we have a pimpl for BufferView ?
Because LyX has reached puberty and now has acne.
Allan. (ARRae)
Why do we have a pimpl for BufferView ?
john
--
I am a complete moron for forgetting about endianness. May I be
forever marked as such.
47 matches
Mail list logo
