On 01/03/2016 11:18 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:01:42AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 01/03/2016 10:59 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>> Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>>>>>> Attached patch OK? If so, I would put it in at the beginning of the
>>>>>> 2.3.0 cycle.
>>>>>> From 0edbc7f52f4ecb288389e94f87e7388d5c466166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>> From: Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:58:22 -0500
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Do not initialize a var to a val that's never used
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By initializing 'to' to a value, the code made it seem like that
>>>>>> value mattered. But the value is overwritten in getWord().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, now if 'to' is used before it is initialized, there might
>>>>>> be a useful compiler warning that could point to a bug.
>>>>>> ---
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> @@ -1266,7 +1266,7 @@ void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location
>>>>>> loc)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> LBUFERR(this == cur.text());
>>>>>> CursorSlice from = cur.top();
>>>>>> - CursorSlice to = cur.top();
>>>>>> + CursorSlice to;
>>>>>> getWord(from, to, loc);
>>>>>> if (cur.top() != from)
>>>>>> setCursor(cur, from.pit(), from.pos());
>>>> The patch is fine, although I am not sure it fixes anything. I dount
>>>> however
>>>> that your comment about to being uninitialized is true, since CursorSlice
>>>> has a default constructor.
>>> Ah right I forgot about that. In this case, I suppose the only benefit
>>> is readability. If Richard gives it a +1, I will put it in. Otherwise I
>>> will forget about it.
>> I don't see any reason not to put it in. And it helps me, at least.
> OK. I will put it in at the beginning of the 2.3 cycle then.
I'd just do it now. It's the safest possible patch. Doing so avoids a
possible merge conflict somewhere down the way with 2.2.x.
Richard
