Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
This is really something that should be cleaned up. I don't understand
the "just to be sure" argument in a software that is by definition
deterministic ;-)
i should remind you that it is friday...
Indeed... I am just coming back so for me it is M
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Juergen> Less, slightly clearer code.
It is not worth doing it, then. I hope this branch will be short-lived
:)
OK. I did it in trunk, though. I investigated why the bvcur setting was
introduced (by André), and verified that problem di
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
This is really something that should be cleaned up. I don't understand
the "just to be sure" argument in a software that is by definition
deterministic ;-)
i should remind you that it is friday...
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Indeed, but it does not only care for dEPM, but also if the
Juergen> cursor is valid. I wonder, though, if the explicit set of
Juergen> bvcursor is not redundand now.
It may be interesting to exp
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> OK. I did it in trunk, though. I investigated why the bvcur
Juergen> setting was introduced (by André), and verified that problem
Juergen> did not reoccur (viz. font change over multiple cells
Juergen> crashed).
Thanks.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> Less, slightly clearer code.
>
> It is not worth doing it, then. I hope this branch will be short-lived
>
> :)
OK. I did it in trunk, though. I investigated why the bvcur setting was
introduced (by André), and verified that problem did not reoccur (viz. font
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: So shall we risk it for 1.4?
>> What do we gain?
Juergen> Less, slightly clearer code.
It is not worth doing it, then. I hope this branch will be short-lived
:)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> So shall we risk it for 1.4?
>
> What do we gain?
Less, slightly clearer code.
Jürgen
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> I think it is enough.
Juergen> So shall we risk it for 1.4?
What do we gain?
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I think it is enough.
So shall we risk it for 1.4?
Jürgen
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> I commented those lines out and didn't see any bad effects at
Juergen> first glance. It looks like this:
[...]
Juergen> while BufferView::mouseSetCursor does:
[...]
Juergen> so cur.bv().cursor() is set in mouseSetCursor.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> Indeed, but it does not only care for dEPM, but also if the
> Juergen> cursor is valid. I wonder, though, if the explicit set of
> Juergen> bvcursor is not redundand now.
>
> It may be interesting to experiment.
I commented those lines out and didn't see any
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Indeed, but it does not only care for dEPM, but also if the
Juergen> cursor is valid. I wonder, though, if the explicit set of
Juergen> bvcursor is not redundand now.
It may be interesting to experiment.
>> But I guess
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> Jean-Marc, would this be o.k. for 1.4?
>
> Yes, except that it is a bit weird to add the setCursor just for the
> depm part (and not really to set the cursor).
Indeed, but it does not only care for dEPM, but also if the cursor is valid. I
wonder, though, if
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc, would this be o.k. for 1.4?
Yes, except that it is a bit weird to add the setCursor just for the
depm part (and not really to set the cursor).
But I guess it is not worse than other parts of the code, so go a
15 matches
Mail list logo
