lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev dev22 - patch to fix PSRC mode with SOURCE_CACHE!=NON


From: Leonid Pauzner
Subject: Re: lynx-dev dev22 - patch to fix PSRC mode with SOURCE_CACHE!=NONE
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:14:36 +0400 (MSD)

14-Apr-99 13:38 Scott Bigham wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Leonid Pauzner wrote:

>> Thanks for you fix!  More problems found with SOURCE_CACHE!=NONE:
>> the length of the re-rendered text may vary so the scrolling down
>> is broken (especially nice when switching to source).
>> This patch will fix it ("more" updated, "lines_in_file" inlined),

> Eek!  Surely this can be localized somewhat.  Try the following patch
> instead, applied on top of my previous dev22 patch:


> --- src/LYMainLoop.c.v2       Wed Apr 14 13:20:49 1999
> +++ src/LYMainLoop.c  Wed Apr 14 13:24:05 1999
> @@ -1361,9 +1361,12 @@
>  #ifdef SOURCE_CACHE
>           /*
>            * This information can get clobbered if we go to an internal
> -          * page while viewing source.  Normally it would be recreated
> -          * by reloading the file; we have to do it ourselves.  -dsb
> +          * page while viewing source, or if the page length changes
> +          * between reparses.  Normally it would be recreated by
> +          * reloading the file; we have to do it ourselves.  -dsb
>            */
> +         more = HText_canScrollDown();
> +         lines_in_file = HText_getNumOfLines();
>           if (curdoc.link < 0 && nlinks > 0)
>               curdoc.link = 0;
>  #endif

Looks well.  Agree that mainloop-dependent things should be fixed there,
if possible.  But the `lines_in_file' should go away for sure -
it is set in more places than it actually used (10:3 ratio, I hope).

>> More problems expected since we now reload documents
>> out of mainloop() cyrcle.

> Not so much outside of mainloop(); we're just tripping over things that
> would normally get cleaned up behind getfile().  And yes, I do expect to
> run into more of them... :-(

>                                               -sbigham





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]