On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Ivan Timofeev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> a nice patch from AOO:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1350585
given that the entirety of the patch is:
--- incubator/ooo/trunk/main/svl/source/undo/undo.cxx 2012/06/15
11:40:33 1350584
+++ incubator/ooo/trunk/main/svl/source/undo/undo.cxx 2012/06/15
11:42:45 1350585
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@
// merge, if required
SfxUndoAction* pMergeWithAction =
m_pData->pActUndoArray->nCurUndoAction ?
m_pData->pActUndoArray->aUndoActions[m_pData->pActUndoArray->nCurUndoAction-1].pAction
: NULL;
- if ( bTryMerge && ( !pMergeWithAction || !pMergeWithAction->Merge(
pAction ) ) )
+ if ( bTryMerge && ( pMergeWithAction && pMergeWithAction->Merge(
pAction ) ) )
{
i_guard.markForDeletion( pAction );
return false;
Just reproduce it and mention i119400 in the commit message.
Note: in this specific case removing the unnecessary '()' [ indeed A
&& (B && C) <=> A && B && C ]
would be enough to make a distinct enough implementation, should
someone insist on the un-realistic concept that such patch rise to the
creativity threshold.
Norbert
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
