the A will be deleted and then the B. The bookmark will
be deleted with the B. Does this fit to your expectation? Or do you
have a better idea?
Regards
Andreas
--
Andreas Martens (ama) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Andreas
--
Andreas Martens (ama) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any text until you deselect this text frame.
Regards
Andreas
Best Regards
Gao Peng
E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date : 2007-07-30
--
Andreas Martens (ama) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Hi,
liutao wrote:
Hi Malte,Andreas
Andreas Martens wrote:
That's what I meant. My question was: why do we need this parameter
in SwDoc::DeleteSection(..)?
because the function GetEditShell() need this parameter and it is called by the
function PaMCorrAbs() then CorrAbs
that, and normally we didn't want that,
because we are just moving away the layout from the SwDoc to the
ViewShell...
Yes, so again, why do we need this layout parameter for DeleteSection(..)?
Any comments/ideas?
No, only questions ;-)
Regards
Andreas
Malte.
Andreas Martens wrote:
Hi LiuTao,
liutao
Hi Malte,
Malte Timmermann wrote:
Andreas...
Andreas Martens wrote:
Hi Malte,
Malte Timmermann wrote:
IMHO there should be some notification, so the Layouts are simply
listeners and we don't need the parameter.
That's what I meant. My question was: why do we need this parameter
in SwDoc
the destructor can
disposal this function.
Best Regards,
LiuTao
Kindly regards
Andreas
---
Andreas Martens (ama) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi,
Pavel JanÃk wrote:
Hi,
the following files still reference the license SISSL (files from
helpcontent2 are not included on purpose):
[..]
sw/inc/IDocumentSettingAccess.hxx
sw/inc/IDocumentTimerAccess.hxx
[..]
see issue 73752
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73752
Regards
Hi Michael,
I agree on many points:
Michael Meeks wrote:
[..]
* Proposed new process
Sorry, didn't find something new :-(
[..]
+ New spec. process:
+ 'Wiki' based solution (for those that want it)
This has been already accepted.
+ minimal data required for good QA
