Hi
Well, I also looked in the archives ( because I only had the last 2
messages in my mbox ) and I noticed Niklas's comment about using
ScRange::ParseAny in ScRangeList::Parse - this *seems* to do exactly the
right thing ( of course additionally the address = address + ':' address
has to be
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
Hi Noel,
On Tuesday, 2007-10-23 12:32:25 +0100, Noel Power wrote:
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
Hi Eike
thanks for the info :-)
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 14:59 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Noel,
On Tuesday, 2007-10-23 12:32:25 +0100, Noel Power wrote:
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
Hi Eike,
the latest version of the patch is here
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/ooo-build/trunk/patches/ooxml/xmlfilter-fixup-singlerange-sheetref.diff
+ if ( (nRes SCA_VALID ) ( nTmp1 ==
nStartRangeBits ) )
+ {
+ if (
Hi Noel,
On Monday, 2007-07-02 12:00:12 +0100, Noel Power wrote:
Finally go a chance to apply the changes from the cws and glad to say
these changes don't seem to affect the tests that I have :-)
Would changing the flags set in ScRange::ParseCols() and
ScRange::ParseRows() have an effect? It
Hi Niklas
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 17:43 +0200, Niklas Nebel wrote:
Noel Power wrote:
If you can let me know when you commit the change ( and to what
file(s) ) I will at least run some tests against that as a sanity check.
It's in sc/source/core/tool/address.cxx 1.9.18.1.
I also made a small
Noel Power wrote:
If you can let me know when you commit the change ( and to what
file(s) ) I will at least run some tests against that as a sanity check.
It's in sc/source/core/tool/address.cxx 1.9.18.1.
I also made a small change to compiler.cxx (1.68.18.1) to correct the
output of such
Hi Niklas
While not involved with reference parsing, I do know that for say the
example range like Sheet1!A1 currently code that Jody popped into the
vba interop api to help me ( for various range XL/R1C1 support )
expects SCA_VALID to be set on return
From your comments below it would seem you
Noel Power wrote:
While not involved with reference parsing, I do know that for say the
example range like Sheet1!A1 currently code that Jody popped into the
vba interop api to help me ( for various range XL/R1C1 support )
expects SCA_VALID to be set on return
From your comments below it would
Hi everyone who's involved with reference parsing,
When parsing references with CONV_XL_A1 convention, the return values
from ScRange::Parse are different from those for CONV_OOO and don't
match what ScCompiler::IsReference expects.
- For a single reference (Sheet1!A1), the bit SCA_VALID is
11 matches
Mail list logo
