Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Could be replaced by
|
| + return lyxview_.view()->buffer() != 0;
|
| if you want. I don't really care about either style.
In this particular case the c-idom is not so strong, so yes, I'd
prefere the explict check. Ple
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Comments?
| > I thought avalialbe a quite nice logical name to use, so I am not
| > sure
| > that the code gets any cleaner by doing this.
|
| I prefer to know exactl
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Comments?
I thought avalialbe a quite nice logical name to use, so I am not sure
that the code gets any cleaner by doing this.
I prefer to know exactly what available() mean and buffer gives me
exactly that. I can rep
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Comments?
I thought avalialbe a quite nice logical name to use, so I am not sure
that the code gets any cleaner by doing this.
But I won't stay in the way.
| Abdel.
| Index: src/BufferView.C
| =
Comments?
Abdel.
Index: src/BufferView.C
===
--- src/BufferView.C(revision 15017)
+++ src/BufferView.C(working copy)
@@ -517,12 +517,6 @@
}
-bool BufferView::available() const
-{
- return buffer_;
-}
-
-
Change co
