Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2011-02-08 Thread Luke Dixon
Hello Jonas, Michael, list, Sorry for not replying sooner. On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 19:32 +0100, Jonas Finnemann Jensen wrote: > I don't think it's critial... None of the commits that removes > brackets and improves SmNodeToTextVisitor have been applied to > libreoffice-3-3... The SmNodeToTextVisito

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2011-02-01 Thread Jonas Finnemann Jensen
I don't think it's critial... None of the commits that removes brackets and improves SmNodeToTextVisitor have been applied to libreoffice-3-3... The SmNodeToTextVisitor there uses a lot of brackets, so there's hopefully no major issues with it... In fact I've kept all the changes to the visual for

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2011-01-31 Thread Michael Meeks
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 13:01 +, Luke Dixon wrote: > Some of the tests are the same kind as the one from last time. It can be > a bit difficult to get the right node tree for the test from the parser, > which also seems to put in more expression nodes than doing it with the > cursor, which confu

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2011-01-29 Thread Jonas Finnemann Jensen
Hi Luke, > Really sorry for not giving this any attention for so long. No worry... I've been busy with exams for the most of January... Though, I hope I had a break through with the newline- bug, yesterday... Removing the brackets from the SmOperNodes was a pretty bad, so they can > just go bac

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2011-01-29 Thread Luke Dixon
Hi Jonas, Really sorry for not giving this any attention for so long. > > I've noticed other stuff I've messed up though, so I'm going to continue > > on this some more :) > Again I'm not sure you messed it up... It might as well have been > messed up the first time I wrote it... > But don't let

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-12-19 Thread Jonas Finnemann Jensen
Hi Luke, > Yep, I'm very sorry for breaking things. I'm not sure you broke this... I'm not even sure it ever worked properly... > I've attached a patch for this particular problem (with a test). Nice, I've pushed it... Really great idea to have tests for it too :) > I've noticed other stuff I've

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-12-19 Thread Luke Dixon
Hi Jonas, I'm very sorry for not responding very quickly. And I'm very sorry for sending pretty much the same message twice, I forgot to CC the list. > That's not all true... I added all the brackets initially because I > had some problems with a few isolated things... > Try writing binom a b + c

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-12-08 Thread Jonas Finnemann Jensen
Hi Luke, > I realized it would be possible to just have brackets in the SmExpressionNode > Visitor. That's not all true... I added all the brackets initially because I had some problems with a few isolated things... Try writing binom a b + c in the command text field... Then enter visual editor a

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-12-07 Thread Luke Dixon
Hello Jonas, > By the way, is the SmNodeToTextVisitor as good as it gets now? > Or is it possible to do more improvements ? and if so, should we leave > as an easy hack we or someone can pickup later? (if not lets remove it > from the wiki). > I don't know how good it is with regards to minimizing

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-11-29 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 20:34 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > I've been struggling a little bit with converting tests from > testautomation/math/required/includes/m_002_.inc e.g. tmEditMarker into > a build-time cppunit test Figured this out now. Can test SmEditWindow standalone now. C. __

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-11-27 Thread Jonas Finnemann Jensen
Hi Luke, Just, pushed the two patches... Sorry, that it took a while to get back to you... By the way, is the SmNodeToTextVisitor as good as it gets now? Or is it possible to do more improvements ? and if so, should we leave as an easy hack we or someone can pickup later? (if not lets remove it f

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-11-25 Thread Luke Dixon
Hello Caolán, > I suggest you cut and paste the header from > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LibreOffice/LicenseHeader > into the top of that new file and stick your name in there as the > original contributor as it is new code. Thanks, that means a lot to me. I've attached a patch whic

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-11-24 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 17:25 +, Luke Dixon wrote: > Ever since I saw that other test added there a couple of weeks ago, I've > been feeling guilty about it and kept wondering if it was put there as a > hint. Heh, success, build it and they will come :-) Thanks a lot for adding extra tests into

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes

2010-11-24 Thread Luke Dixon
Hello Jonas, Thanks for accepting these patches. > Nice work! I didn't know there was bugs in SmNodeToTextVisitor, but > somehow it doesn't surprise me... > The format is slightly obscure and the visitor was in need of some love... Sometimes the smallest bugs are the hardest to believe. There ar