On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:35:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Index: lyxtext.h
> | ===================================================================
> | RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx-devel/src/lyxtext.h,v
> | retrieving revision 1.208
> | diff -u -p -r1.208 lyxtext.h
> | --- lyxtext.h 11 Aug 2003 09:08:53 -0000 1.208
> | +++ lyxtext.h 12 Aug 2003 12:22:15 -0000
> | @@ -512,6 +512,9 @@ public:
> | /// return true if this is owned by an inset.
> | bool isInInset() const;
> |
> | + /// recreate paragraphlist iterator from rowlist iterator
> | + ParagraphList::iterator getPar(RowList::iterator rit) const;
>
> Are you creating something? Or is this really just a find... so you
> are just returning a paragraphlist iterator.
Hm. Ok. Intention was "recreate lost information".
>
> | @@ -2281,3 +2281,39 @@ int LyXText::getDepth() const
> | {
> | return cursor.par()->getDepth();
> | }
> | +
> | +
> | +// re-creates par iterator from row iterator by counting zeros in
> | +// the sequence of pos values.
> | +
> | +ParagraphList::iterator LyXText::getPar(RowList::iterator row) const
> | +{
>
> Drop this check. At most add an assert:
> (Assert(row != rows().end()))
> passing rows().end() should not be allowed.
For some funny reason I've seen all three messages in the output when
running LyX with a "more advanced patch" based on this code. But maybe
that's already an indication that the current core is not doing what it
is supposed to do.
> | + ++pit;
> | + if (pit == ownerParagraphs().end()) {
> | + lyxerr << "unexpected in
> | + LyXText::getPar()" << endl;
>
> is it only unexpected or completely bogus.
It means the row() stores an parlist iterator that's not belonging to
the current ownerParagraphs() (much like the cause of the multipar cut
crashs).
I can't think of a scenario where it whould make sense to have a row
with an pit to a 'foreign' list, but I can't guarantee that the current
code thinks so as well.
Ok, as this is not part of the 'happy end scenario', an Assert might be
in order...
> ( Assert(pit != ownerParagraphs().end()) )
>
> | + Assert(0);
>
> false
>
> | + return ownerParagraphs().begin();
>
> drop this and leave the above Assert permanent.
Ok.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
