Subject: Re: ZAP/[patch] Martin's cursor position POW
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 05:16:04 CST
HI John,
I've read through your patch. I like the nice clean code although
as Sam says it does not conform to the Abi style. Unfortunately I
got strnge behaviour when I applied it. It might be because I was very
rushed at the time. However reading through the code it looks like it
should work and since Sam and you both say it does I suspect I did
something wrong.
Specifically I openned two views on a large document put the cursor near
the end of one view and did a big cut near the beginning of the other
view. The cursor in the uncut view jumped back to match the location in
cut view. Did you check that all the _setpoint() functions were fixed in
the doclisteners?
Anyway can you provide a new patch that conforms to the Abi style? I know
it sounds silly but it does help in the longrun to have nice looking code.
I'll have another go in a less rushed way with your new patch.
Oh one last thing, instead of "unsigned int" use our platform independent
"UT_uint32" declaration.
Cheers
Martin
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, John L. Clark wrote:
> Well guys, I think this may be the first ZAPPED POW of the new
> millenium. The url to the original POW announcement is
> http://www.abisource.com/mailinglists/abiword-dev/01/January/0198.html.
> Martin, would you be so kind as to check to see if this is what you
> wanted? Everyone else, let me know what you think, and how it works.
>
> Some notes: I changed one int to an unsigned int (you can see it in the
> patch), because the compiler was complaining about comparison between
> signed and unsigned. Shouldn't be a problem.
>
> To actually do the zapping, though, what I did was create a new function
> in AV_View base class to check whether the given *_View object was the
> currently active/focused one. I believe this correctly belongs in the
> base class because the functionality is generic across applications. To
> do this, I also had to #include "xap_Frame.h" in xav_View.cpp, which I
> also think makes sense (unless xap_Frame.h is alternately included
> elsewhere).
>
> Anything else? Oh yeah, there's a broken image on our homepage. :)
>
> Next goal?
>
> Take care,
>
> John
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 05:16:17 CST