On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:10:39AM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:11:06PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > >>>>> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Martin> I don't understand this at all. > > > > You mean what I wrote above? > > I mean especially "Aren't you supposed to play similar ++ tricks like that?" > > > > > Martin> All I know is that my patch works, and that I thought I > > Martin> understood why. Now I'm not so sure anymore. > > > > Martin> Anyway, a working patch for 1.4. Shouldn't we just commit and > > Martin> forget about the luxury of understanding it? > > > > Let's wait a bit to see whether Andre chimes in...
Aehm. What? Selection? This is two dociterators, 'anchor' and 'cursor', with anchor.size() >= cursor.size() and anchor[i].inset() == cursor[i].inset() for i = 0 ... cursor.size() - 1. anchor[cursor.size() - 1].pos() might be different from cursor[cursor.size() - 1].pos(), same for idx() > OK. There is still the alternative of modifying operator== etc for > dociterator. Maybe 'named' functions would be better for non-obvious 'equality'. Andre' --
