On 12/04/2016 8:17 a.m., Guillaume Munch wrote:
Le 11/04/2016 20:53, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:27:42PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote:
Le 11/04/2016 20:10, Richard Heck a écrit :
Again, why stripping "Flex:" off the beginning of name_? This is
not
how it is done before the regression. Or did I miss something?
name_ wouldn't have contained "Flex:". It's there because
InsetLayout::name() includes it.
I am not sure that you understood my question. Are you making the
assumption that nobody ever wrote Flex:Flex: just to spare an "else"
branch?
This would be a bad idea, but it saves a few cycles to do "else if"
anyway, so it's fine.
Also I think it is safer to replace support::token with
support::split.
Actually, it would be easier just to use substr(5). We know what
we're
removing.
Sure, or whatever equivalent function. I can confirm that this gives
another regression, whereby
\begin_inset Flex x:y
>from 2.1.4 will get replaced by
\begin_inset Flex x
in 2.2 upon saving. In particular when the layout Flex:x:y is defined
and Flex:x is not (or to something entirely different). This
should be
patched as well IMO.
I'm not sure I see why this is---or which version of which patch is
causing
it---but I'm prepared to believe it.
Anytime support::token is used.
To summarise, I think the best solution in the long run is
Jean-Marc's
but with these two issues above being corrected. In the short term
it is
safer to go with my patch, which is essentially Richard's "safe"
patch
plus these two issues corrected. Let me know what you think.
That's fine with me.
Waiting for +1.
Go ahead. Thanks for the quick action on this.
Done
Jean-Marc earlier suggested that I make a trac ticket. Time zones have
obviously got in the way. Is a ticket still needed?
Andrew
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
