To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=77439
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 24 12:51:42 +0000 2007 ------- These patches were first created for an older version (some for 1.1.5 and some for 2.0.4), and I suppose the patch for basesh.cxx made sense then, but you have performed the same modification, so now it should be ignored. Sorry about not noticing it beforehand. As for the initialization order observation, I thought in most cases the initialization order in the constructor was more of an indication of developer intent than the order in the declaration. I tried to understand the code before creating a patch for it, but it is possible that I overlooked things and that I did not understand some things correctly. If you can explain the problem in more detail I can check if it applies to any of these patches. Or you can check them yourself if you have the time. There's a single file containing all the patches attached to Issue 73468. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
