On 22 Oct 1999 01:25:43 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| And if you're wise you might consider adding a comment that explains
>| why this is standard conformant and why C-style coding style is frowned
>| upon :-)
>
>Because it is the standard? :-)
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And if you're wise you might consider adding a comment that explains
| why this is standard conformant and why C-style coding style is frowned
| upon :-)
Because it is the standard? :-) Surely I could qoute section numbers,
but would that really help?
On 19 Oct 1999 17:40:35 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>NO!! You have to check the standard before doing _ANY_ changes to
>lyxstring.
>
>|
>| I'll fix this now and if you don't like it then you (you is general not JMarc;)
>| can refix this and also all instances in the code where we allocate
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| It still aborts and the STL library does not so what, maybe it's time
| you send this pretty bad developers a mail to remember them to follow
| the standard #:O)
the STL library? what STL library?
Lgb
On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| So the fix was not that wrong :), why not have the Assert only in
>| development versions?
>
> Yes it was that wrong! "shall not" under a requirements heading is
> pretty adamant.
* smile *
It still abor
On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| Just to be curious, someone does compile lyx-devel with STL so that
>| lyxstring is not used? Could that person try to insert a lable in the
>| code from the menu Insert->Label and see what happens?
>
> You
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Just to be curious, someone does compile lyx-devel with STL so that
| lyxstring is not used? Could that person try to insert a lable in the
| code from the menu Insert->Label and see what happens?
You mean if it should crash or not :-)
The standard us
On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| Why, so only people knowing all C++ standards should touch the
>| lyx-code?
>
> No, only the part of the code that is written to follow a standard.
>
Just to be curious, someone does compile lyx-devel w
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Why, so only people knowing all C++ standards should touch the
| lyx-code?
No, only the part of the code that is written to follow a standard.
Lgb
On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| If I would have know what means correctly for you, then yes, but I'm
>| no mindreader yet...
>
> A standard is a standard is a standard.
> (You dont change them you see...)
Why, so only people knowing all C++ standards should touch the lyx-code?
So I'
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > If it was obvious I would. I got the impression that the bug was in
| > vspace.C, but a quick scan did not reveal it to me.
| > But you should have fixed the bug correctly...
| >
|
| If I would have kno
On 20-Oct-99 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> If it was obvious I would. I got the impression that the bug was in
> vspace.C, but a quick scan did not reveal it to me.
> But you should have fixed the bug correctly...
>
If I would have know what means correctly for you, then yes, but I'm
no mindr
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>
| >> Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
| >> Lars> Juergen> if (s && *s) | | Juergen> I already did this so, ... ;)
| >> Lars> | | OK, it looks reasonable.
| >>
|
| It's ok to revert changes which are not optimal, but IMVO th
>>
>> Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
>> Lars> Juergen> if (s && *s) | | Juergen> I already did this so, ... ;)
>> Lars> | | OK, it looks reasonable.
>>
It's ok to revert changes which are not optimal, but IMVO that if you
revert changes which fix a bug then you should
On 19-Oct-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
> Lars> Juergen> if (s && *s) | | Juergen> I already did this so, ... ;)
> Lars> | | OK, it looks reasonable.
>
> Lars> No, it d
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> Juergen> if (s && *s) | | Juergen> I already did this so, ... ;)
Lars> | | OK, it looks reasonable.
Lars> No, it does not!
I think we got the message :)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Juergen> if (s && *s)
|
| Juergen> I already did this so, ... ;)
|
| OK, it looks reasonable.
No, it does not!
Lgb
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| No I mean remove the Assert() and change
|
| if (*s)
|
| to
|
| if (s && *s)
|
| I already did this so, ... ;)
Plain wrong.
Lgb
PS: I wonder if the mgs is getting through soon...
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Juergen> Assert(s); // we don't allow null pointers
|
| The assert is maybe not necessary. Lars?
It is very necessary!
Lgb
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Assert(s); // we don't allow null pointers
Excatly what the standard says.
| But then something like this is not possible:
|
| string str = ptr; // ptr could also be 0
yes, and this should fail.
| but we always have to do something like:
|
| strin
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Really Lars we should fix this and the problem with xforms_0.89 and
| release a 1.0.4.1!
1.0.4.1 will not happen.
Lgb
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Juergen> I think this should be removed and there should be a check in
Juergen> the constructor which just does not initialize if the pointer
Juergen> is a 0 pointer!
>> You mean initialize to empty?
Juergen> No I mean remove the A
>
> Juergen> I think this should be removed and there should be a check in
> Juergen> the constructor which just does not initialize if the pointer
> Juergen> is a 0 pointer!
>
> You mean initialize to empty?
No I mean remove the Assert() and change
if (*s)
to
if (s && *s)
I already did thi
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Ok then at least we should now stop inserting new stuff, fix
Juergen> the bugs and release the first 1.1.0 version :)
Yes, that's the right way. 1.1.1 should be out as soon as possible. If
we take too much time, there will be
On 19-Oct-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Juergen> Thank's this is exactly what I looked for :). This IS a bug
> Juergen> and it should be solved! Did someone already apply the patch
> Juergen> for this '-'->'_' problem? Otherwise
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Thank's this is exactly what I looked for :). This IS a bug
Juergen> and it should be solved! Did someone already apply the patch
Juergen> for this '-'->'_' problem? Otherwise I'll have a look.
This has not been fixed yet. How
On 19-Oct-99 Jan Ulrich Hasecke wrote:
> CMD: faxspool '4'
> '/tmp/lyx_tmp22397aaa/lyx_bufrtmp22397aaa/Flyer-1.ps_tmp'
>>/tmp/lyx_tmp22397aaa/lyx_bufrtmp22397aaa/FAX22397aaa
> 2>/tmp/lyx_tmp22397aaa/lyx_bufrtmp22397aaa/FAX22397aaa
>
> There is a file in this directory, but it is called:
> Flye
27 matches
Mail list logo
