On 2015-10-29, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28:00PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: >> On 2015-10-28, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:31:50AM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: >> >> On 2015-10-26, Guenter Milde wrote: >> >> > On 2015-10-26, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> >> >> Has anything changed in the last couple of days?
>> >> I'l commit an updated FIXME. >> > This does indeed sound tricky. Can you figure out the necessary items to >> > condition on from BufferParams or is not everything stored in there? >> It became a bit simpler after going through the alternatives: >> In pseudo-code: > I looked at the pseudo-code but since I don't know this code well it's > not clear if you still need my help. If you have access to the buffer > params (which my patch gave), is that enough? Can you test with the > patch I posted before? Or is something else missing? As my FIXME was wrong, so is your patch. In principle, I may be able to use your patch and combine it with my comments, but alas, I don't know this code either, nor do I know C++, so it would take too much time and the result would not be clean and I'd rather leave this to a more eligible person. > In regards to "Dont forget to keep this check in sync with the check > above!" this seems to be a good situation for a helper function in order > to share code. Maybe define a new setting/helper_function "inputenc package available" in BufferParams.cpp? Thanks, Günter
