Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

| Abdel.
| 
| Index: buffer_funcs.cpp
| ===================================================================
| --- buffer_funcs.cpp  (revision 19485)
| +++ buffer_funcs.cpp  (working copy)
| @@ -614,4 +616,25 @@
|       }
|  }
|  
| +
| +void loadChildDocuments(Buffer const & buf)
| +{
| +     bool parse_error = false;
| +             
| +     for (InsetIterator it = inset_iterator_begin(buf.inset()); it; ++it) {

Should the test be comparing against the end-iterator instead? Would
be clearer if possible, nand fit better with other uses of iterators.
But I see that this is done in old code as well, so don't mind to
much. Should probably we changed later on though.

| Index: BufferView.cpp
| ===================================================================
| --- BufferView.cpp    (revision 19485)
| +++ BufferView.cpp    (working copy)
| @@ -872,21 +752,21 @@

It seems that almost all changes to BufferView is buffer_-> to
buffer_. changes.

| Index: BufferView.h
| ===================================================================
| --- BufferView.h      (revision 19485)
| +++ BufferView.h      (working copy)
| @@ -269,7 +263,7 @@
|       ///
|       CoordCache coord_cache_;
|       ///
| -     Buffer * buffer_;
| +     Buffer & buffer_;

To keep the size of the patch down I think you should leave this as
Buffer * buffer_;

| Index: frontends/controllers/ControlTabular.cpp
| ===================================================================
| --- frontends/controllers/ControlTabular.cpp  (revision 19485)
| +++ frontends/controllers/ControlTabular.cpp  (working copy)
| @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
|               // assume that it is "ours"
|               for (int i = cur.depth() - 1; i >= 0; --i)
|                       if (cur[i].inset().lyxCode() == Inset::TABULAR_CODE) {
| -                             current_inset = static_cast<InsetTabular const 
*>(&cur[i].inset());
| +                             current_inset = static_cast<InsetTabular 
*>(&cur[i].inset());

Why is const wrong?


Your patch is very big (size wise) and I am afraid that at least to me
that muddles a bit what is happening in it, and it really is tiresome
to read such huge patches.

-- 
        Lgb

Reply via email to