On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:27:42PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 11/04/2016 20:10, Richard Heck a écrit : > >>>>Again, why stripping "Flex:" off the beginning of name_? This is not > >>>>how it is done before the regression. Or did I miss something? > >>> > >>>name_ wouldn't have contained "Flex:". It's there because > >>>InsetLayout::name() includes it. > >> > >> > >>I am not sure that you understood my question. Are you making the > >>assumption that nobody ever wrote Flex:Flex: just to spare an "else" > >>branch? > > > >This would be a bad idea, but it saves a few cycles to do "else if" > >anyway, so it's fine. > > > >> > >>> > >>>>Also I think it is safer to replace support::token with support::split. > >>> > >>>Actually, it would be easier just to use substr(5). We know what we're > >>>removing. > >>> > >> > >>Sure, or whatever equivalent function. I can confirm that this gives > >>another regression, whereby > >> > >>\begin_inset Flex x:y > >> > >>from 2.1.4 will get replaced by > >> > >>\begin_inset Flex x > >> > >>in 2.2 upon saving. In particular when the layout Flex:x:y is defined > >>and Flex:x is not (or to something entirely different). This should be > >>patched as well IMO. > > > >I'm not sure I see why this is---or which version of which patch is causing > >it---but I'm prepared to believe it. > > Anytime support::token is used. > > > > >>To summarise, I think the best solution in the long run is Jean-Marc's > >>but with these two issues above being corrected. In the short term it is > >>safer to go with my patch, which is essentially Richard's "safe" patch > >>plus these two issues corrected. Let me know what you think. > > > >That's fine with me. > > Waiting for +1.
Go ahead. Thanks for the quick action on this. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
