On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 09:47:19AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Martin Vermeer a écrit : > >On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 09:12:08AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
...
> >>>> for (ParIterator it = par_iterator_begin(buf.inset()); it; ++it) {
> >>>>
> >>>What is the test doing in this for-loop? Shouldn't it be testing it !=
> >>>end,
> >>>with end = par_iterator_end(buf.inset()) ?
> >>>
> >>I didn't dare to ask and I think I've seen this used in other parts of
> >>the code. Don't ask me if this (it==0) is a good test though...
> >>
> >
> >What happens if you put in a "proper" test as I proposed?
> >
> It seems to work fine.
>
> >It would at least be more legible.
> >
>
> Yes, unless it this (it==0) has some special meaning... like start of
> some environment or something. This DocIterator/ParIterator is really
> complicated.
This line of code originates from revision 9682, when Jean-Marc moved
updateCounters from text2.C to buffer_funcs.C, and at the same time
replaced pit_type arithmetic by pariterators. That's when "end" and its
definition disappeared, and the changelog contains nothing on it...
Jean-Marc, do you remember why you did this?
- Martin
pgpAXIL2hkfwR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
