On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:41:29PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:37:32PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:50:56AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > Here's a better one.
> >
> > Not really ;-)
> >
> > > Index: src/mathed/InsetMathFrac.cpp
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- src/mathed/InsetMathFrac.cpp (revision 20193)
> > > +++ src/mathed/InsetMathFrac.cpp (working copy)
> > > @@ -48,9 +48,11 @@
> > > bool InsetMathFrac::metrics(MetricsInfo & mi, Dimension & dim) const
> > > {
> > > FracChanger dummy(mi.base);
> > > + if (kind_ == UNITFRAC)
> > > + ShapeChanger dummy2(mi.base.font, Font::UP_SHAPE);
> > > cell(0).metrics(mi);
> > > cell(1).metrics(mi);
> >
> > The ShapeChanger changes the Shape back to the original state when it is
> > destructed, i.e. the end of its scope. In this particular piece of code
> > the scope of 'dummy2' is the 'if' branch, i.e. the shape will already be
> > restored before cell(0).metrics() is called.
> >
> > I am not sure that changing the shape is needed at all. Is the resulting
> > metrics visually different?
>
> Perhaps not, but would it be wise to count on that?
*shrug* If it walks likes a duck...
Andre'
