On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:49:31PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Hi,
> |
> | am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code
>
> yes.
> (oh where did the friday go...)
>
> It is in the vein of "prefere algorithms to manual constructs"
...
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:06:14AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:03:55PM +0100, Michael Gerz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code or can
> >> cutandpas
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
And you now have to add comments to tell what the loop is doing
instead of having that implied by the name of the function for_each
calls...
C'mon Lars, there is a big fat comment inside of the loop!
Do you want me to explain what a loop is? How many loop does LyX
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| >| Hi,
| > | | am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code
| >
| >yes.
| >(oh where did the friday go...)
| >
| >It is in the vein of "prefere algorithms to manual const
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code
yes.
(oh where did the friday go...)
It is in the vein of "prefere algorithms to manual constructs"
Anyway, I am going to commit my simplification. The "manual
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code
yes.
(oh where did the friday go...)
It is in the vein of "prefere algorithms to manual constructs"
--
Lgb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I suspect that someone wanted to play with all the new toys he
>>> read about in a C++ book.
>>
>>No. resetParagraph was used in two places (see 1.4), therefore it made
>>sense to not duplicate the code.
>
> I dropped the second c
>Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
>> Yes, I suspect that someone wanted to play with all the new toys he
>> read about in a C++ book.
>
>No. resetParagraph was used in two places (see 1.4), therefore it made sense
>to not duplicate the code.
I dropped the second call to resetParagraph because I think
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Yes, I suspect that someone wanted to play with all the new toys he
> read about in a C++ book.
No. resetParagraph was used in two places (see 1.4), therefore it made sense
to not duplicate the code.
Georg
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:03:55PM +0100, Michael Gerz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code or can
>> cutandpaste.C be simplified?
Martin> Probably both ;-)
Yes, I suspect that someone wanted
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:03:55PM +0100, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> am I too stupid to see the brilliancy of the code or can cutandpaste.C
> be simplified?
Probably both ;-)
> Please comment on the attached patch (ignore the CT part).
>
> Michael
- Martin
pgp5O6NA8ANYu.pgp
Description
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> That's just what I was wondering. If this is so, it presupposes that
> pit always points into pars, which is the text *into* which the paste
> should take place... hmm it looks like it, but I find pasteSelcection
I think the same.
> in text2 hard to read :-(
And unfortun
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 09:01:18PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein spake thusly:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > 350 #warning CHECK! Are we comparing last_paste to the wrong list
> > here? (Lgb)
> > 351 if (boost::next(last_paste) != pars.end() &&
> > 352 paste_the_end) {
> >
>
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> 350 #warning CHECK! Are we comparing last_paste to the wrong list
> here? (Lgb)
> 351 if (boost::next(last_paste) != pars.end() &&
> 352 paste_the_end) {
>
> This remark looks valid to me...wrong comparison.
Not to me.
> What is doubleplusunnice a
14 matches
Mail list logo
