On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:34:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Lars, it is impossible to use lyx for about more than 30 seconds without
> | triggering this assert. Really.
>
> I managed...
Staring at the screen for 30 secs does not count.
> And now I get exactly _no_ reports, so the re
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:35:19PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | Lars, it is impossible to use lyx for about more than 30 seconds without
> | triggering this assert. Really.
>
> So all you are saying is that this is uninteresting to fix...
Not at all. We still have the printk. We can sti
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:34:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | Lars, it is impossible to use lyx for about more than 30 seconds without
> | triggering this assert. Really.
>
> I managed...
Wow.
> And now I get exactly _no_ reports, so the rest won't get fixed until
> I turn the assert
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:29:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Also, I don't "know there are lots of problems with pos() == size()",
| > there are some problems, and I want the areas identified. My own
| > testing is unlikely to uncover all of
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:29:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Also, I don't "know there are lots of problems with pos() == size()",
| > there are some problems, and I want the areas identified. My own
| > testing is unlikely to uncover all of
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:08:28PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > Also, I don't "know there are lots of problems with pos() == size()",
> > there are some problems, and I want the areas identified. My own
> > testing is unlikely to uncover all of those places.
>
> Lars, it is impossible to use lyx f
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:29:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Also, I don't "know there are lots of problems with pos() == size()",
> there are some problems, and I want the areas identified. My own
> testing is unlikely to uncover all of those places.
Lars, it is impossible to use lyx f
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:58:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Why has the stronger assert been removed?
Andre did it
> And now it is really bad, since behaviour changes depending on some
> strange debug flag.
Oopps, accidental commit :)
john
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:58:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Why has the stronger assert been removed?
|
| Because I was/we were hunting a bug (completely broken Collapsable inset
| drawings) which I considered more grave than the off-by-one
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:58:12AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Why has the stronger assert been removed?
Because I was/we were hunting a bug (completely broken Collapsable inset
drawings) which I considered more grave than the off-by-one we have been
living with for ages. If LyX crashes on
Why has the stronger assert been removed?
Don't you want to fix these bugs?
And now it is really bad, since behaviour changes depending on some
strange debug flag.
Bad.
--
Lgb
11 matches
Mail list logo
