> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:42:24PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> > "command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as" fails silently
>> though. A > bug ?
>>
>> The missing semicolon at the end?
John> Yup.
John> Fixed by :
Looks like
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:15:34PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> --- lyxfunc.C 9 Jul 2002 16:23:19 - 1.334
> +++ lyxfunc.C 10 Jul 2002 15:13:38 -
> @@ -1554,7 +1554,7 @@
> case LFUN_SEQUENCE:
> {
> // argument contains ';'-terminated commands
> - wh
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:42:24PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > "command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as" fails silently though. A
> > bug ?
>
> The missing semicolon at the end?
Yup.
Fixed by :
Index: lyxfunc.C
===
RCS
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:52:43PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> The missing semicolon at the end?
>
> Why is this semicolon needed?
Because the implementation says so and I really don't care.
Feel free to fix it.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Se
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:37:15PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>> > command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as ;
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> "command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as" fails silently
>> though. A bug ?
Andre> The
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:37:15PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as ;
>
> Thank you.
>
> "command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as" fails silently though. A
> bug ?
The missing semicolon at the end?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 08:06:20AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > buffer-new ; buffer-write-as
>
> command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as ;
Thank you.
"command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as" fails silently though. A
bug ?
regards
john
--
"I know I believe in nothing but it is
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:15:07AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> OK, I give up how do I evaluate multiple commands at once, in particular
>
> buffer-new ; buffer-write-as
command-sequence buffer-new ; buffer-write-as ;
> It seems anything past the function name is swallowed up as an argument.
> Is
OK, I give up how do I evaluate multiple commands at once, in particular
buffer-new ; buffer-write-as
?
It seems anything past the function name is swallowed up as an argument.
Isn't ';' supposed to be a delimiter ? Any objections if I make that be
the case iff it's an argument to command-exec
