On 21/12/11 16:18, Marcel Metz wrote:
Hello lo-devs,
I've tested the patch with 'make check', but would like to point out
that the reviewer should take special care of the change in
'sc/source/core/tool/chgtrack.cxx:3140-3160'. From my understanding
of the code the tools Table does not
Hi Michael,
On Wednesday, 2011-12-21 20:27:21 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
and in ScChangeTrack::Reject, the old code iterated from end to start
(dunno if that is important there, but why not use a reverse_iterator)
Yes, rejections must happen in reverse order there, thanks for catching.
On 21.12.2011 20:27, Michael Stahl wrote:
pushed to master, with 2 small corrections:
this here inverted the logic, Get == 0 means not found:
- if ( p != pAct !rTable.Get( p-GetActionNumber() ) )
+ if ( p != pAct rMap.find( p-GetActionNumber() ) != rMap.end() )
and in
