Re: [Libreoffice] About "Same expression on both sides of '||'" in LockEntrySequence.cxx

At 17:15 16-1-2012, Caol�n McNamara wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:04 -0800, julien2412 wrote:
> > First, I thought about just replacing the above line by this one :
> > if ( !pCtx->hasType || !pCtx->hasScope )
>
> I have no idea, but http://rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/2518/chapter23.html
> has...
>
> <!ELEMENT lockentry (lockscope, locktype) >
> <!ELEMENT lockscope (exclusive | shared) >
> <!ELEMENT locktype (write) >
>
> and this is LockEntrySequence_endelement_callback presumably to be
> called on processing the close tag, so I would expect that at the end of
> a lockentry tag we should have both a locktype and a lockscope
>
>  case STATE_LOCKENTRY:
> -   if ( !pCtx->hasType || !pCtx->hasType )
> +   if ( !pCtx->hasType || !pCtx->hasScope )
>       return 1; // abort
>
> on the basis that presumably if either the type or scope of the lock is
> missing then its busted assuming (a big ask) I read the dtd correctly.

That's a correct reading. A lockentry element 
must contain both a lockscope element and a 
locktype element (in that sequence!).

Best regards,

Christophe
(just commenting on the DTD part)


> C.


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the 
AEGIS project www.aegis-project.eu
---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or 
other "social networks". You may have agreed to 
their "privacy policy", but I haven't.