----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/#review35 -----------------------------------------------------------
Putting the "oi++" in the same line as the affectation is unclear. Please put that on the next line and write a comment as to why this increment must happen as soon as the affectation to cur_oi is done (the whole point of the patch). I'm afraid that someone reviewing casually the code would "simplify" this by putting the increment back in the "for" statement. - Merov On 2010-12-15 11:27:50, Kitty Barnett wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-12-15 11:27:50) > > > Review request for Viewer. > > > Summary > ------- > > erase() on a multimap will only invalidate iterators that point to the > element being erased so pre-incrementing the loop iterator should prevent it > from getting invalidated when an observer calls removeObserver() as part of > its processParcelInfo() implementation. > > > This addresses bug VWR-24207. > http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-24207 > > > Diffs > ----- > > indra/newview/llremoteparcelrequest.cpp UNKNOWN > > Diff: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Kitty > >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
