On 29/09/14 21:20, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I've refactored the appropriate code, in src/roff/troff/input.cpp,
with a view to accommodating this; see patch attached. While I've
not yet progressed any implementation for PDF handling, I have
indicated the point at which it should be invoked. Okay to commit,
thus far?
This is very nice, thanks! For my taste, the comments are a bit
excessive, but I guess this is probably only me who thinks so :-)
I've always favoured a verbose commenting style, since I learned to
write FORTRAN-66, way back in the early 1970s. Today, with my failing
60+ year old memory, I really appreciate the value of this, when I come
back to code 6 months or so after I wrote it, and find that I cannot
remember how it was supposed to work :-)
Some comments, mainly regarding formatting:
+ while ((context = bounding_box_args()) == NULL
+ && get_line(DSC_LINE_MAX_ENFORCE) > 0)
+ ;
Please say
while ((context = bounding_box_args()) == NULL
&& get_line(DSC_LINE_MAX_ENFORCE) > 0)
;
Okay.
+ while (*context == '\x20' || *context == '\t')
+ context++;
Hmm. I don't know how that crept in ...
Please say
while (*context == '\x20' || *context == '\t')
context++;
This is how it *looked* in my working file copy, but there's one tab in
amongst a string of spaces there -- I must have somehow managed to
override vim's normal tab insertion on that line. The extra '+' flag,
in the patch file, pushed it over by an extra tab stop, and I missed it
when I cast my eye over the patch. It should be fixed, in the updated
patch attached.
+ status = (context_args("(atend)", context) == NULL)
+ ? llx = lly = urx = ury = PSBB_RANGE_IS_BAD
+ : PSBB_RANGE_AT_END;
Please say
status = (context_args("(atend)", context) == NULL)
? llx = lly = urx = ury = PSBB_RANGE_IS_BAD
: PSBB_RANGE_AT_END;
Okay.
+ register size_t len = strlen(tag);
Given that recent versions of clang emit warnings if it encounters the
`register' keyword, and given that this keyword has no effect for
about 20 years, please don't use it:
Done, but are you sure about the lack of effect? (I seem to recall
having observed a benefit, quite recently, in assembly code generated by
GCC-4.8.2).