> On Dec. 28, 2012, 2:45 p.m., C. Boemann wrote:
> > there is a few places where you have:
> >
> > if ()
> > {
> >
> > and one place where there is no {} after if
> >
> > other than that I've not looked yet - I assume you want moji to review
>
> Inge Wallin wrote:
> The
>
> if ()
> {
>
> construct is only used where the test is >1 line. If I put the { at the
> end of the line, the first statement inside the brackets will be perfectly
> aligned with the test. I find that a bit difficult to read, hence this way of
> getting around it.
>
>
> C. Boemann wrote:
> I'm not arguing against the merrits of it. I have personally always
> preferred this way of placing braces. However I also think we should follow
> the hacking style at all times. This way may be easier for you to read but
> the point of a acking style is that anyone with a minimum of trouble can come
> in and work on the code. After all we are supposed to be an open community.
>
> For case like you desribe I personally write like this (knowing full well
> that this is my personal style as well (though not prohibited by the official
> style):
>
> if (bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
> bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
> bla bla bla bla bla) {
> foo;
> bar;
> }
>
> another way not against the hacking style would be:
>
> if (bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
> bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
> bla bla bla bla bla) {
> foo;
> bar;
> }
>
> In the end I don't care all that much about this issue, but will close by
> saying that the day we do sweeping hacking style cleanups your carefully
> crafted (and special cased) exceptions would be probably be gone. My
> variations are more likely not to be touched.
>
> Inge Wallin wrote:
> You're right. I would prefer to have one solution we could all agree on
> and use everywhere. Your first example works well too. But are you sure that
> it will survive the sweeping hacking style cleanup, which I suppose will be
> automatic?
No, not sure at all, but at least it has a chance.
- C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107969/#review24105
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 30, 2012, 4:44 a.m., Inge Wallin wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107969/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 30, 2012, 4:44 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Calligra.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> This patch implements support for math formulas in the EPUB filter. This is
> the first one of the EPUB3 features that we want to add to Calligra 2.7.
>
> This version only supports math formulas saved as an embedded document, like
> LibreOffice and the OpenOffice variants save it. Calligra saves math formulas
> as inline mathML in the frame, which is not supported by this version. I
> thought that I could get some initial feedback while implementing support for
> the Calligra way too.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> filters/words/epub/OdfParser.cpp 6069b89
> filters/words/epub/OdtHtmlConverter.h 68aaffa
> filters/words/epub/OdtHtmlConverter.cpp e5e0edc
> filters/words/epub/TODO e634a05
> filters/words/epub/exportepub2.cpp cfd50c3
> filters/words/epub/exporthtml.cpp 5bb44aa
>
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107969/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Created one simple odt using OOo which has a formula and some text.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Inge Wallin
>
>
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
