Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-commits] .: stoc/source

On 10/04/2011 07:11 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 9:33am -0400 Mon, 03 Oct 2011, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > stoc/source/inspect/introspection.cxx | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > New commits:
> > commit 9e6d06a871b366cc72f9a23ab45080b66a47f144
>
> Making my way through a backlog of commits ... it seems to me that it
> doesn't matter why the for-loop was used in the first place, because now
> it's not "clean" code, and the function could be made "that much better".
>
> I don't know much about the Reference or XIdlClass data types, but this
> patch at least compiles on my machine, and I claim removes ambiguity
> while remaining true to the "came-before" logic. It also removes the
> overhead of recursion, as I don't think this algorithm needs it.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks a lot for the patch.  I think the real intent always was to 
actually look through all the returned getSuperclasses(), and the error 
that superclasses past the first one are effectively ignored has never 
been noticed.  (getSuperclasses() returning a sequence of length greater 
than one only happens for multiple-inheritance interface types, which 
are relatively rare.  And the isDerivedFrom in question is probably also 
not called that much.)

I will look into this tomorrow.  (I had this oddity on my list for a 
while now, anyway.)

-Stephan