Hi Eike,
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:32 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Noel,
> You were faster than me..
well I would have been faster still if I had re-read fully (and
understood) the content of original thread ;-)
> I also wanted to suggest to use
> ScRange::ParseAny. However, care must be taken of the assignment of
> USHORT nRes such that for a valid single address it must be extended to
> form a bitmask of a valid range that is to be compared with nMask and
> added with nResult &= nRes.
yes you are right, I am just passing SCA_VALID as the nMask so I didn't
see this. Given if we change this there is a possibility that someone
somewhere depends on the full set of range flags being set
do you mean either
a) the client of ScRangeList::Parse must take care of this OR
b) ScRangeList::Parse should detect the single range was parsed by
ScRange::ParseAny and it should apply the remaining flags (
SCA_VALID_COL2 | SCA_VALID_ROW2 | SCA_VALID_TAB2 ) OR
c) ScRange::ParseAny should apply the extra flags it successfully
parses the string
a) would mean finding every caller :-(
b) has some merit because it's an internal change
c) you could argue that if someone calls something called
ScRange::parseAny they would expect success to mean the full set of
flags to be set regardless of whether the range was formed from single
address or not
so, I am a little uncertain as to what/where extra changes are needed
what do you think?
Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
