Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
No, there is a boost macro compatibility flag that I plan to use in the
future for that. This flag will need a change of the "emit", "signals"
and "slot" macros to "Q_EMIT", "Q_SIGNALS" and "Q_SLOT" or something
like that. In the mean time, please accept my timeout::emit change that
is really not a big deal.
Why not do the emit -> Q_EMIT change beforehand? It is independant of your
other changes, and would reduce the patch size. One thing at a time!
Because this change will have to be done on all qt code and the
resulting patch will be bigger than this one. IMO, those changes are
really minimal, nothing to fuss about.
BTW, when skimming your patch I noticed:
Index: src/insets/insettabular.C
===================================================================
--- src/insets/insettabular.C (revision 14265)
+++ src/insets/insettabular.C (working copy)
@@ -586,7 +586,7 @@
// //if (hasSelection())
// // cur.selection() = false;
// col_type const col = tabular.column_of_cell(cur.idx());
-// int const t = cur.bv().top_y() +
cur.bv().painter().paperHeight();
+// int const t = cur.bv().top_y() + cur.bv().width();
// if (t < yo() + tabular.getHeightOfTabular()) {
// cur.bv().scrollDocView(t);
// cur.idx() =
tabular.getCellBelow(first_visible_cell) + col;
I guess this should be height(), not width()?
Oups, right, tanks, I'll change that. Who is responsible for this
commented out code anyway?
Abdel.
