On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 16:22 +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > Martin Vermeer wrote: > > Here's the explanation: > > Thanks. I still don't fully get it. I understand what you are doing, but I > don't understand why this is necessary (even though I see *that* it is > apparently necessary).
Same here. > > (Actually this is relevant only for positioning *inside* this inset, > > i.e., the case where this cursor slice is not at the tip. Positioning > > the visible cursor in this way is a side effect. Perhaps one should test > > for _not_ being at the tip around the above statements... how?) > > Don't know. It would be easy with access to DocIterator :-( But anyway, this > last positioning problem also applies to nested insets. > However, this is a glitch I think we could live with. > > > if (moved && it < end() && (*it)->getChar()) > > > > I believe you can leave out it < end(), as moved == true already implies > > that. > > It's even simpler. Cf. the attached. > > Jürgen ;-) - Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
