>>> and 11012? >> >> That one certainly looks like a bug, yes. > >But reading the code a bit, and especially this comment earlier in the >same function: > > // LO internal gradient -> PDF shading type: > // * GradientStyle_LINEAR: axial shading, using sampled-function >with 2 samples > // [t=0:colorStart, t=1:colorEnd] > // * GradientStyle_AXIAL: axial shading, using sampled-function >with 3 samples > // [t=0:colorEnd, t=0.5:colorStart, t=1:colorEnd] > >I think it is obvious that the missing break in fact is intentional >there. Testing would have indicated that, I guess. Explicit comment >preferrable than implicit debugging =). > > >(Whether translating LO gradients to PDF shading types in the way >indicated makes sense or not is a totally different question... Would >you want to work on that?) It's nice for me. > > >What do we learn from this? Don't immediately assume that what you or >your editor think is a bug is not intentional. Instead, think harder, >and if necessary, test what the code actually does at run-time. I always check >warnings. Implicit and non-default behaviour should be documented or made >explicit. > > >--tml
Fedor Strizhnev Федор Стрижнёв.
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice