Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rgheck
Date: Wed Jul 9 20:42:41 2008
New Revision: 25522
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/25522
Log:
Fix bug 5010, for the most part. There's no need to construct a
default UndoElement,
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
bool isFullBuffer;
+private:
+ /// Protect construction
+ UndoElement();
};
Wouldn't std::deque require this being pulic?
But I won't object if it "just works" on all suppo
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
bool isFullBuffer;
+private:
+ /// Protect construction
+ UndoElement();
};
Wouldn't std::deque require this being pulic?
But I won't object if it "just works" on all suppo
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
bool isFullBuffer;
+private:
+ /// Protect construction
+ UndoElement();
};
Wouldn't std::deque require this being pulic?
That's I thought too... weird.
But I won't ob
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > bool isFullBuffer;
> > +private:
> > + /// Protect construction
> > + UndoElement();
> > };
Wouldn't std::deque require this being pulic?
But I won't object if it "just works" on all supported
platforms...
Andre'
rgheck wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rgheck
Date: Wed Jul 9 20:42:41 2008
New Revision: 25522
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/25522
Log:
Fix bug 5010, for the most part. There's no need to construct a
default UndoElement,
which involves constructin
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rgheck
Date: Wed Jul 9 20:42:41 2008
New Revision: 25522
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/25522
Log:
Fix bug 5010, for the most part. There's no need to construct a default
UndoElement,
which involves constructing a default Bu
