On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:42:40AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >- sal_Int32 nActChar = rUnEscaped.indexOf(rText[nIndex]); > >+ int nActChar = rUnEscaped.indexOf(rText[nIndex]); > > if(nActChar!=-1) > > sResult = sResult.replaceAt((nIndex)+(nCount++),1, > > rEscaped.copy(2*nActChar,2)); > > What's the reason for changes like this? The involved type is > sal_Int32, not int, and sal_Int32 is not necessarily a typedef for > int (e.g., it is a typedef for long on some platforms). I fear that > routinely using plain int instead of those sal types when > interfacing with code using those sal types leads to unnecessary > compiler warnings.
It was me who suggested using int and not sal_Int* when the size does not matter. However I forgot to point out that sal_Int* types are the way to go when the variable is initialized by a method returning sal_Int* already. Sorry for the confusion. :) Miklos _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
