On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:56:45AM +0200, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> >I can't tell you. It is conceptionally sound, however, so close to
> >1.5.0
> >it might be more prudent to use something like
>
> The old behavior is simpler than I thought. A search for isActive
> basically shows that there is no math inset (other than the
> InsetMathMBox, which just return true, and InsetMathNest with nargs()
> > 0) which overwrite the method:
>
> BufferView.cpp: if (inset && inset->isActive()) {
> Cursor.cpp: if (!t->isActive())
> Cursor.cpp: if (t->isActive()) {
> DocIterator.cpp: if (n && n->isActive()) {
> insets/Inset.h: virtual bool isActive() const { return nargs() > 0; }
> insets/Inset.h.orig: virtual bool isActive() const { return nargs
> () > 0; }
> mathed/InsetMathMBox.h: bool isActive() const { return true; }
> mathed/InsetMathNest.cpp:bool InsetMathNest::isActive() const
> mathed/InsetMathNest.h: bool isActive() const;
>
> So isActive() is just equivalent to nargs() > 0 at the place
> mentioned in the patch. Hence replacing the nargs() > 0 as proposed
> is safe.
>
> > ... && !atom->isMathRefInset()
> >
> >and put a fat FIXME there to ask fopr investigation in quieter times.
>
> don't think it's necessary because of the comment above.
Ok then.
Andre'
