Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > | -// workarea().setScrollbarParams(t->height(), top_y(),
| > defaultRowHeight());
| > | > | +// work_area_->.setScrollbarParams(t->height(), top_y(),
defaultRowHeight());
| > | > | }
| > | > The commented code got mangeld.
| > | | I plan to remove this workarea() access method so it's better to
| > not
| > | leave any trace.
| > sure... but is 'work_area_->.' a valid construct.
|
| ?? This is a "WorkArea *" pointer so yes it is valid. In the GUI
So first operator-> is used and then operator.: is that a valid
consturct? It is the '.' that I am yapping about.
| The attached patched change the naming. Do you see how much I want to
| please you today? ;-)
it almost gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
| Index: src/BufferView_pimpl.C
| ===================================================================
| --- src/BufferView_pimpl.C (revision 14148)
| +++ src/BufferView_pimpl.C (working copy)
| @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@
| // scrollDocView(new_top_y);
| //
| // // Update the scrollbar.
| -// work_area_->.setScrollbarParams(t->height(), top_y(),
defaultRowHeight());
| +// workArea_->.setScrollbarParams(t->height(), top_y(),
defaultRowHeight());
^^^
'.' dot dot dot
--
Lgb
