Re: Proposal/Prototype support for "fill in character" in Calc Number Format Strings

Hi Johann,

firstly apologies for the late replying, I have only just got back from 
vacation and am catching up with email.
On 06/07/12 18:10, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Hi Johann,
>
> I hope you don't mind me forwarding this nice work of yours to our main development mailing list, 
> to let other interested developers know of your work.  Let me also CC Noel since he's done a very 
> similar work for 3.6.  There may be some overlap between his work and yours...
there probably is, please take a look at the thread 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/28410
So, briefly the state of affairs is as described in the opening mail of 
the thread, there is support currently for interpreting the repeating 
code in the format and to render the result, the support for persisting 
the repeat codes in odf and additionally  any change to the preview or 
any 'built-in' financial formats are not done yet ( awaiting odf format 
wrangling ). I looked very briefly at your patch and it looks good, 
seems quite similar ( ok, things like parsing etc done in different 
places 'cause I reuse the existing format scanner ) You seem to have 
some additional code on the rendering side, honestly I don't look too 
deeply into it, not sure if it is necessary or not, could you take a 
look and see if your extra parts are needed ? If so and you have a nice 
test doc to show the issue you are trying to address and can supply a 
patch to improve what we do there should be no problem ( and we would be 
glad ) to integrate fixes here.

I see that the submission to the odf tc has been done, I'm not sure if 
we need to give a little time for reaction to the proposal or not ( I 
would be inclined to just go for it on master ) before implementing the 
remaining parts that are yet uncommitted.

Ok, it's worth mentioning that this implementation was really just 
proof-of-concept, it hasn't been tested exhaustively so you see I would 
not be surprised if the extra parts you have done are indeed necessary, 
I would be really glad for your input in the context of the current 
changes on master. I would also not be surprised if there are some bugs 
in there ( either in my crummy rendering part or even the parsing part ) :-)

thanks,

Noel