On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:22:47AM +0200, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
>
> Am 12.06.2007 um 23:44 schrieb Andre Poenitz:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:14:44PM +0200, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> >>
> >>Am 12.06.2007 um 14:47 schrieb Leuven, E.:
> >>
> >>>ctrl-n
> >>>ctrl-m
> >>>\neq
> >>>arrow right (exit math)
> >>>arrow left (enter math again)
> >>>
> >>>and i don't see the neq sign but \ =
> >>
> >>I can confirm that. Please make a bug report out of it.
> >
> >Seems like width computation assumes w >= 0 somewhere.
> >
> >Btw can anybody explain me how stuff like
> >
> >
> > //BufferView & bv = *mi.base.bv;
> > //Buffer const & buf = *bv.buffer();
> > for (size_t i = 0, n = size(); i != n; ++i) {
> > MathAtom const & at = operator[](i);
> >#if 0
> > MathMacro const * mac = at->asMacro();
> > if (mac && buf.hasMacro(mac->name())) {
> > MacroData const & tmpl = buf.getMacro(mac->name());
> > int numargs = tmpl.numargs();
> > if (i + numargs > n)
> > numargs = n - i - 1;
> > lyxerr << "metrics:found macro: " << mac->name()
> > << " numargs: " << numargs << endl;
> > if (!isInside(bv.cursor(), *this, i + 1, i + numargs
> > + 1)) {
> > MathData args(begin() + i + 1, begin() + i +
> > numargs + 1);
> > MathData exp;
> > tmpl.expand(args, exp);
> > mac->setExpansion(exp, args);
> > mac->metricsExpanded(mi, d);
> > dim_.wid += mac->widthExpanded();
> > i += numargs;
> > continue;
> > }
> > }
> >#endif
> > at->metrics(mi, d);
> >
> >can end up in MathData.cpp?
>
> This question I have asked myself so many times, but not only about
> this piece of code.
> Btw, two lines of the block above are by you ;-)
That was the global MathArray -> MathData renaming, no 'active' change.
> >This is certainly not the bit bucket of the nation....
> >
> >The whole business around rev 17836 and 17840 looks dubious at best.
>
> What are you talking about and what do those revisions have to do
> with the code above?
This code went in in 17840 (completel with '#if 0' and such). The lock
message tells about reverting 17835 which did not change that part at
all. "Revert to revision 17835: I applied the wrong tree!"
But 17836 did, but that looks equally strange.
> It would be helpful if you wrote what you don't like...
I don't like big chunks of '#if 0''d code go in without good reason.
> I am not a fan of riddles and I am not somebody who can read
> other's thoughts.
I stumbled across this when I tried to figure out what might cause the
metrics computation of '\not' (used in e.g. \neq) go wrong.
Andre'
