John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_lines; ++i) {
>
> (attached)
and committed.
Jürgen
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < num_lines; ++i) {
(attached)
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
Index: mathed/MacroTable.h
===
--- mathed/MacroTable.h (revision 33347)
+++ mathed/MacroTabl
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> see attached.
Thanks, Looks good from my POV.
Final nitpick:
> + for (i=0;i
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> Something like the attached then?
>
> Sort of, yes. Although I would, to be in line with what we have, do in
> MathMacroTemplate::write
>
> int i = 0;
> [...]
see attached.
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Something like the attached then?
Sort of, yes. Although I would, to be in line with what we have, do in
MathMacroTemplate::write
int i = 0;
[...]
if (os.latex()) {
// writing .tex. done.
os << "\n";
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> Do you mean something like the writeLaTeX function in BufferParams.cpp
>> that has TexRow passed in, and itself calls "texrow.newline();"?
>
> I mean, make the write function an int and then call texrow.newli
John McCabe-Dansted writes:
> Also... I was thinking that it should be possible to define a
> texrowStream object encapsulates an odocstream and a TeXRow and
> automatically calls newline() whenever a newline is written to it, but
> presumably there is some reason why this approach was not taken.
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Do you mean something like the writeLaTeX function in BufferParams.cpp
> that has TexRow passed in, and itself calls "texrow.newline();"?
I mean, make the write function an int and then call texrow.newline()
accordingly in the buffer function.
Jürgen
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> It is just a missing "d->texrow.newline();".
>>
>> The attached patch adds this back in. I've tested this patch against
>> branch and trunk. Shall we apply this to trunk now?
>
> Looks much better.
>
> Howeve
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> It is just a missing "d->texrow.newline();".
>
> The attached patch adds this back in. I've tested this patch against
> branch and trunk. Shall we apply this to trunk now?
Looks much better.
However, instead of inserting this line, shouldn't we rather do as elsewhere
10 matches
Mail list logo
