I followed the idiom you indicated, commited and pushed on master (see
9d0136679e441413b6945d2a40aa892b50ee19a8)
Thank you Stephan for the details about C++
Hope that C++11 will spread quickly because all these things aren't very
intuitive.
Julien
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.d
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 18:30 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 03/02/12 18:17, Terrence Enger wrote:
>
> > Stephan, I am sorry to question your expertise, but I wonder ... is
> > your reassurance based on knowledge of the language standard, or is
> > based on observed behaviour of C++ compilers?
>
On 03/02/12 18:17, Terrence Enger wrote:
> Stephan, I am sorry to question your expertise, but I wonder ... is
> your reassurance based on knowledge of the language standard, or is
> based on observed behaviour of C++ compilers?
hahaha, i believe that among all the developers who ever worked on
O
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:31 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 03/02/12 17:21, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> >> On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> >>> The "standard idiom" is
> >>>
> >>> for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
> >>>
On 02/03/2012 05:31 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
ah, that's surprising.
that's shocking ;)
see, that is why i almost always write the i++ as an extra statement,
i'm never quite exactly sure what it does, and when :)
There is a sequence point (in C++03 parlance; the nomenclature changed
slight
On 03/02/12 17:21, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>> The "standard idiom" is
>>>
>>> for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
>>> if (doErase) {
>>> m.erase(i++);
>>> } else {
>>>
On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
The "standard idiom" is
for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
if (doErase) {
m.erase(i++);
} else {
++i;
}
}
but doesn't that have the same problem? "i" is
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 09:08 PM, julien2412 wrote:
>> Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
>
> Unfortunately that still has a problem. After "rBoxes.erase(toErase)",
> "it" (which is the same as "toErase") is invalidated, so incrementing it
> (up i
On 02/02/2012 09:08 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
Unfortunately that still has a problem. After "rBoxes.erase(toErase)",
"it" (which is the same as "toErase") is invalidated, so incrementing it
(up in the for(...;...;...) part) has undefined behavior.
Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
diff --git a/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
b/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
index 33b953e..5c626dd 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
@@ -967,8 +967,8 @@ void SwTableFormula::GetBoxes( const S
10 matches
Mail list logo
