> Andre> Yes. It is intended.
>
> I am not sure what is the real gain you make by defining these
> stripped-down methods, though. IMO, it decreases the understandability
> of the code (if I may use this word).
Why should I pass around unneeded parameters?
Maybe I should use other names for the "internaL" functions just to get rid
of the warnings.
> @@ -276,6 +280,14 @@
> to integral type of smaller size could lose data (D:intconlosbit)
> for (int i = Cursor_.size() - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
> ---------------------^
I am somewaht disliking changing the ints to some unsigned type for three
reasons:
- it's more typing, the actual intend gets clouded by the verbosity
- it's not consistently used within lyx anyway.
- it may break code:
what's the "correct" way to write loops like the one above?
> @@ -315,6 +332,16 @@
> qualifier on return type is meaningless (D:nousetypqualret)
> char const name() const;
> -------------------^
This one looks suspicious...
Anyway, I cant' fix anything right now, I am on a conference until Friday,
net-less during the weekend and probably off again for a few days
thereafter...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
