Hi Matteo,
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 02:04 +0100, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> * a revised patch, with a new ImplDrawSymbol;
Lovely :-) it reads more nicely now, I pushed it & good work.
> * a picture with the drawings of all symbols, produced by both the old
> and by the new routines. All symbols were drawn with different sides
> of their target rectangle, and for each rectangle size 4 full
> sequences of symbols are drawn:
All looks good to me. I love the improved float icon too :-)
> Yeah, using polygons could reduce that code, but I just begun
> contributing and I don't feel comfortable with such a big change, at
> least for now.
Heh :-)
> Besides, I had a quick look at (rendering of) polygons
> and it looks a little too complicated for such small symbols and, if you
> take a look at the circles generated by the original ImplDrawSymbols
> (which made use of polygons), you'll see that the results were not so
> precise.
Right; I saw you replaced that.
> No problem, I see that there's a lot of activity in the repository :)
> I'm planning to do some more cleanups in Docuview, I'll post them little
> by little. Is this kind of activities appreciated or would bug-solving
> be better ?
Oh - well, everything gratefully received :-) whatever interests you
most is best I think. Of course, some of our bigger, nastier problems
are in the are of user-interface;
> I'm asking this because this task was chosen by chance, more
> for training than for other reason.
Sure; so - you could poke another easy-hack, or carry on cleaning this
up. There are really plenty of interesting tasks - it often helps to
have several on the queue :-)
Of course, things that improve the UI are much appreciated by end
users, and there are a number of open tasks in this area that are not
easy hacks if you're interested (Christophe had a nice idea of making it
rather easier to add notes by clicking on the ruler IIRC that might be
fun) :-)
> Another question on preferred behaviour for future contributions: should
> I have posted this new patch as a new mail, with an explicit [PATCH]
> header in its subject?
That's best practise yes, but luckily I was watching for this :-)
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:22 +0100, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> please also note that for SYMBOL_CHECKMARK I kept both normal and
> mirrored versions of the symbol, as in the original routine, although
> the comment
>
> // #106953# never mirror checkmarks
Heh :-)
> seems to mean that this is not desired. But I don't know if the
> comment is obsolete, misleading (could it mean that the bug was that
> checkmarks was not mirrored, as they should?) or correct (and in the
> latter case implementation is wrong). As a beginner I really don't
> know where to search for such a bug report and, honestly, I'm a bit
> puzzled by bug identifiers (fdo#, i# or whatelse).
Ah - so - this bug is to a dead & obsolete Sun/Oracle bug tracker that
rides no more: it'd be good (in fact) to come up with a nice regexp to
find them all across the code & remove them.
> I did some internet research about checkmarks in RTL, without results.
> Unless the original bug report is found, this issue should/could
> eventually be clarified with some RTL people.
Sure - poke Lior Kaplan he's the man for RTL queries. I strongly
suspect the comment is right though - I don't think those guys want
backwards ticks in boxes ;-)
Anyhow - thanks for the great work; looking forward to your next steps.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
