Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source

On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 4:15pm -0400 Tue, 04 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Excellent. Was wondering, but don't yet know LO well enough to make such
> declarations. Well, modulo any errors on my part, the logic I sent in
> patch 1 should be the same as what was originally there, but I hope
> easier to read/see for comparison/fixing.
>
> Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just
> confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random
> drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now
> changes the semantics of it actually used to do. If you know how to test
> it ...

Yes, that's how I would have done it, too.  Pushed now, thanks again. 
(I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions 
are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at 
<http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers>.)

-Stephan