Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | There is no need to repeat the 'assert on pos != size' story.
>>
>> But you are now allowing blantatly wrong cursors to just be trasformed
>> into something valid.
>
| But it enables people to use 1.4.0cvs and we were aiming for a release
| after a few people have used it, don't we?
So you add a new feature with hacks to workaround the deficiencies in
the feature...
>> And it is these kind of special values that is never really ok,
>
| This is a sentinel to catch exactly the kind of 'late crashes' we've
| seen after the conversion to list<Paragraph>.
>
>> but we add small workarounds here and there, that makes code
>> ununderstandable and unreadable.
>>
>> When is it ok for a cursor par to have a value of -1?
>
| Never. This is just to catch situations where a text is used but its
| cursor is not explicitly initialized.
So, dammit, 1.4.0 will not be released tomorror or the week after
that. So a tiny effort to fix this would be nice.
| This is not really 'blatantly wrong' and a reason for an assert. In fact
| the pre-parlist code simply ignored that situation with using a 0
| Paragraph* in the 'uninitialized cursor'. We could mimic old behaviour
| by initializing the paragraph to 0 in the LyXCursor constructor and get
| exactly pre-parlist behaviour (i.e. no crashes, no warning).
>
| Getting the warning, however, is a means to detect bad logic. And while
| the old code simply ignored it and the current code crashes I thought it
| would be better to fix it.
by pretending it is '0'? Is that really a fix?
| I need the warning for that and 1.4.0cvs needs users. We can have both.
| Were is the _real_ problem?
Will you act on every warning, not that you don't have to?
| Could we please stop going into politics every day? This costs me a lot
| of time and annoys me greatly.
You have no prerogative on that.
--
Lgb
