Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Georg Baum wrote: >> And then look at the very recent marginal bug: AFAIK (correct me if I am >> wrong) this happened because of missing review of the insetName -> name >> change. > > Small correction: this bug appeared in the InsetOld -> Inset transfer > with the removal of setInsetName(). Nothin to do with the insetName -> > name change.
Thanks for the correction. It does not change much: I just looked it up, that rename also went in without review. >> A simple and safe looking change caused a serious bug. > > About this particular one, I proposed to make the method pure virtual, > any objection? Looks good provided you are 100% sure that the names are correct. Georg
