[patch] fix a couple of lfuns

This is yesterday's patch (fix LFUN_WORD{LEFT,RIGHT}SEL) + a fix to LFUN_WORDSEL (getWord) + some comments fixed. Alfredo Index: lyxtext.h === RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx-devel/src/lyxtext.h,v retrieving revision 1.275 diff

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > This is yesterday's patch (fix LFUN_WORD{LEFT,RIGHT}SEL) > + a fix to LFUN_WORDSEL (getWord) > + some comments fixed. Doesn't look wrong. Andre'

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > This is yesterday's patch (fix LFUN_WORD{LEFT,RIGHT}SEL) > + a fix to LFUN_WORDSEL (getWord) > + some comments fixed. > > Alfredo > > Index: lyxtext.h > === > RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx-devel/sr

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | This isn't how doxygen works. > >> void getWord(CursorSlice & from, CursorSlice & to, >> lyx::word_location const); > | \param is used so: | /** General description of the function. Followed by | \param from start look

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

Angus Leeming wrote: > This isn't how doxygen works. > >> void getWord(CursorSlice & from, CursorSlice & to, >> lyx::word_location const); > > \param is used so: > /** General description of the function. Followed by > \param from start looking from here. >

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> See the difference? > | Barely ;-) > | Gimme good examples then! (grep for param in *.h for an explanation... quite | a few use in the other way) > | I'll make the change, thanks. > | btw, why is it used as @param sometimes? There is the javadoc

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:32:54PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > RFC: Should be begin adding those \param stuff to _all_ functions > taking parameters? And use **UNDOC** (or some other marker) when we > have no documentation for it? Similar for method description? Would it > be helpful, or ju

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:42:03PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > I am leaning towards javadoc... but have no strong opinion.. I don't care either. Andre'

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:32:54PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> RFC: Should be begin adding those \param stuff to _all_ functions >> taking parameters? And use **UNDOC** (or some other marker) when we >> have no documentation for it? Similar for

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:32:54PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> RFC: Should be begin adding those \param stuff to _all_ functions > >> taking parameters? And use **UNDOC

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:10:01PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > Words like '\param' clearly interfere with reading... Indeed. It could be smart and look at the function code itself, if you get into the habit of naming parameters even in prototypes/headers, then doxygen could do it automatically.

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:26:29PM +, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:10:01PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > Words like '\param' clearly interfere with reading... > > Indeed. It could be smart and look at the function code itself, if you > get into the habit of naming parame

Re: [patch] fix a couple of lfuns

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:34:29PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > But no, we have B&D instead :/ > > Whatever that is. Bondage & Discipline. john -- Khendon's Law: If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.