On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:20 AM, zyx <z...@gmx.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 17:08 +0100, Michal Sudolsky wrote:
> > From code around seems it really does not depend what parent is here
> > set, I followed logic above and did it like this (this is all what I
> > changed):
> >
> > old:
> > > PdfNameTreeNode( NULL, pChild1 ).SetLimits();
> > > PdfNameTreeNode( NULL, pChild2 ).SetLimits();
> >
> > new:
> > > PdfNameTreeNode(m_pParent != NULL ? m_pParent : this,
> > > pChild1).SetLimits();
> > > PdfNameTreeNode(this, pChild2).SetLimits();
>
> Hi,
> just few things:
> a) you accidentally replied only to me, not to the list
> b) this is far from being a patch, you should attach it, because your
> HTML message body breaks patch in several ways (and even if it's not
> HTML message, I still prefer patches as attachments, which avoids
> issues with mail readers)
> c) that didn't change anything here, the resulting PDF is the same
>
Regarding this yes as I wrote pdf reader will reject this pdf because there
are no pages, try to add page and you will see both pdf same in pdf reader.
What is here different is part of internal pdf structure which I pasted
into these emails from text editor and in case before patch is this
structure not as it should be and in case of more elaborated example there
can be seen differences also in pdf viewer.
> d) I guess you are aware that the code snippet you provided in
> the first email of this thread is generating warnings on console:
> "Unsupported object given to PdfDestination::Init of type
> DictionaryDone"
>
> Bye,
> zyx
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Podofo-users mailing list
Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
