Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 12:02:00, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn 
<[email protected]>
> Op 4-8-2013 22:23, Scott Kostyshak schreef:
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Scott Kostyshak <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn <[email protected]> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kornel Benko <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> About the patch... why do we care about malformed LyX documents ? How
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> this happen ? Are there some documents in a very old fileformat. Then we
> >>>>> should update those.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> At least now the tests will show it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If this is a valid argument, we can throw in a thousand of ad-hoc checks 
> >>> at
> >>> random places, ...
> >> I don't consider this an ad-hoc check because I don't view it as a
> >> test for the LyX documents (although as Kornel points out it might
> >> have this extra benefit). I view it as a test of the assumption that
> >> the export tests are making. The export tests depend on finding the
> >> 'default_output_format' buffer param. For the tests to work correctly,
> >> it is assumed that the buffer param exists. This patch tests that
> >> assumption.
> >>
> >> Scott
> > Vincent, do you have more comments on this?
> >
> > Scott
> 
> Well, I still didn't get an answer to my question why it is needed ?
> 
> As far as I see it, it cannot happen that there is no 
> default_output_format. Only if there are lyx files with an old file 
> format. In that case:
> 
> - a) we should update all lyx docs to the latest format anyway;

In that case the patch does no harm

> - b) we can just check for the fileformat to see whether it has the 
> latest format;

This is seldom the case ...

> - c) we can assume "default" when there is no "default_output_format".
> 

Good idea.

> Either way, it is not important, but I just don't see the rationale 
> behind this patch.

We needed only a clear idea, how to proceed IMHO.

> Vincent
> 

        Kornel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to