On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:26:55PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:46:14PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 06:43:14PM +0000, Luis Rivera wrote:
> > case RC_TEX_ALLOWS_SPACES:
> > if (lexrc.next()) {
> > tex_allows_spaces = lexrc.getBool();
> > @@ -1342,6 +1350,12 @@ void LyXRC::write(ostream & os, bool ign
> > os << "\\cygwin_path_fix_needed "
> > << convert<string>(cygwin_path_fix) << '\n';
> > }
> > + case RC_CYGWIN_STYLE_PATHS:
> > + if (ignore_system_lyxrc ||
> > + cygwin_style_paths != system_lyxrc.cygwin_style_paths) {
> > + os << "\\cygwin_style_paths "
> > + << convert<string>(cygwin_style_paths) << '\n';
> > + }
> > case RC_TEX_ALLOWS_SPACES:
> > if (tex_allows_spaces != system_lyxrc.tex_allows_spaces) {
> > os << "\\tex_allows_spaces "
> > @@ -2137,6 +2151,9 @@ string const LyXRC::getDescription(LyXRC
> > break;
>
> I find that missing break in the added block suspicious.
I don't think so, as it is a very particular switch. Here is the
pertinent comment in src/lyxfunc.C:
void actOnUpdatedPrefs(LyXRC const & lyxrc_orig, LyXRC const & lyxrc_new)
{
// Why the switch you might ask. It is a trick to ensure that all
// the elements in the LyXRCTags enum is handled. As you can see
// there are no breaks at all. So it is just a huge fall-through.
// The nice thing is that we will get a warning from the compiler
// if we forget an element.
--
Enrico
