Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try

[Vlad Harchev]

On Tue, 22 May 2001, ha shao wrote:

> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:52:30PM +0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2001, ha shao wrote:
> >  The code in AW 0.7.14 is
> >                       if (no_convert==0 && ch<=0xff)
> >                       {
> >                               wchar_t wc;
> >                               if (m_mbtowc.mbtowc(wc,(UT_Byte)ch))
> >                                       return AddChar(wc);
> >                       } else
> >                               return AddChar(ch);
> > 
> >  I don't see how 'else' can reset buffer (AddChar(ch) doesn't reset it
> > either). Or did RTF importer change there since 0.7.14?
> > 
> 
> Yes, the current cvs read:
> =================================================================
>                                 if (no_convert==0 && ch<=0xff) 
>                                 {       
>                                         wchar_t wc;
>                                         // TODO Doesn't handle multibyte encodings (
> CJK)
>                                         if (m_mbtowc.mbtowc(wc,(UT_Byte)ch))
>                                                 return AddChar(wc);
>                                         else
>                                                 m_mbtowc.initialize();
>                                 } else
>                                         return AddChar(ch);
>                         }
> ==================================================================

 Thanks for quoting it. Yes, "else m_mbtowc.initialize();" and the "//TODO"
should be removed (comment was also absent in 0.7.14).
 
> > > Beside, since the AddChar(ch) does not actually insert the
> > > character into the document (as suggested in its definition),
> > > can we just add the mb into a buffer and call m_mbtowc.mbtowc()
> > > at the beginning of FlushStoredChars?
> > 
> >  I think it would be troublesome. Is there are any reasons why the way you
> > propose may be better than current implementation (besides performance)?
> > 
> 
> yes, performance, and maybe safer. anyway, it is a mirror point.

 So it seems nothing needs to be changed..

> -- 
> Best regard
> hashao
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad