Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
> Well done!
>
> Bennett
Great, we've solved it.
Is in svn now.
>>> Congratulations to you both!
>>>
>>> Abdel.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Abbel.
>> But congratul
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Well done!
Bennett
Great, we've solved it.
Is in svn now.
Congratulations to you both!
Abdel.
Thanks, Abbel.
But congratulations to you, too.
Your recent speedups are really impressive.
Currently we h
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Well done!
Bennett
Great, we've solved it.
Is in svn now.
Congratulations to you both!
Abdel.
Thanks, Abbel.
But congratulations to you, too.
Your recent speedups are really impressive.
Currently we h
Here the patch.
Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>> Bennett Helm wrote:
Well done!
Bennett
>>> Great, we've solved it.
>>> Is in svn now.
>> Congratulations to you both!
>>
>> Abdel.
>>
>
> Thanks, Abbel.
> But congratulations to you, too.
> Yo
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Bennett Helm wrote:
>>>
>>> Well done!
>>>
>>> Bennett
>>
>> Great, we've solved it.
>> Is in svn now.
>
> Congratulations to you both!
>
> Abdel.
>
Thanks, Abbel.
But congratulations to you, too.
Your recent speedups are really impressive.
Cu
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Well done!
Bennett
Great, we've solved it.
Is in svn now.
Congratulations to you both!
Abdel.
Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>> Bennett Helm wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>>
Bennett Helm wrote:
>> Yes, please this one.
>
> Well ... I don't notice any difference from the last patch --
> including
>>
On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Yes, please this one.
Well ... I don't notice any difference from the last patch --
including
no crashes to generate a backtrace with.
Bennett
How
Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>> Bennett Helm wrote:
Yes, please this one.
>>>
>>> Well ... I don't notice any difference from the last patch -- including
>>> no crashes to generate a backtrace with.
>>>
>>> Bennett
>>
>> How many ways are there on t
On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Yes, please this one.
Well ... I don't notice any difference from the last patch --
including
no crashes to generate a backtrace with.
Bennett
How many ways are there on the Mac to exit the application?
For proper Ma
Bennett Helm wrote:
>> Yes, please this one.
>
> Well ... I don't notice any difference from the last patch -- including
> no crashes to generate a backtrace with.
>
> Bennett
How many ways are there on the Mac to exit the application?
What is the output of LyX when you apply attached patch
for
On Dec 1, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
...
This is totally wrong, fixed in the new patch.
...
I also have the impression that QCloseEvent isn't called on the Mac,
I've added an output in the new patch to verify
Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> This is totally wrong, fixed in the new patch.
>
> ...
>
>> I also have the impression that QCloseEvent isn't called on the Mac,
>> I've added an output in the new patch to verify it.
>>
>>>
>>> qApp->exit() seem
On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
...
This is totally wrong, fixed in the new patch.
...
I also have the impression that QCloseEvent isn't called on the Mac,
I've added an output in the new patch to verify it.
qApp->exit() seems to always results in killing the application.
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
-LyX::ref().quit();
+
+// quitting is trigged by the gui code (leaving the event
loop)
+theApp()->gui().closeAllRegisteredViews();
What's the difference between this and closeAll()? Can a view be
unregi
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I think this could be a good solution but the problem here is that I
> think there is a bug in QtMac. This is a theory that could well explain
> Bennett's report about non-saved files on exit:
>
> qApp->exit() seems to always results in killing the application. It
> see
Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>> {
>>> -size_t const id = max_view_id_;
>>> -++max_view_id_;
>>> -
>
> This is totally wrong, fixed in the new patch.
I mean my solution was wrong:
>>> +size_t const id = viewIds().size();
>>> +views_.insert(std::pair(id, new GuiView(id)));
>>> +retur
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> In the last patch is a bug for Mac.
>> Here the corrected.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Index: src/lyxfunc.C
>> ===
>> --- src
Peter Kümmel wrote:
In the last patch is a bug for Mac.
Here the corrected.
Index: src/lyxfunc.C
===
--- src/lyxfunc.C (Revision 16123)
+++ src/lyxfunc
Bennett Helm wrote:
> I'm not sure what this was supposed to fix, but I'm not seeing any
> difference in behavior after applying the patch. Thus:
Most changes are cleanups to make the code more manageable.
> * session info still isn't saved
I can't believe it. The new patch has a output at the
On Nov 30, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
In the last patch is a bug for Mac.
Here the corrected.
I'm not sure what this was supposed to fix, but I'm not seeing any
difference in behavior after applying the patch. Thus:
* session info still isn't saved
* starting LyX, creating a new
In the last patch is a bug for Mac.
Here the corrected.
Index: src/lyxfunc.C
===
--- src/lyxfunc.C (Revision 16123)
+++ src/lyxfunc.C (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1034,12 +1034,6 @@
break;
ca
22 matches
Mail list logo
