Re: fdo#41572 Making it possible to add custom animation to master slides

Hey Tor!

It is good to know that even you have been taking interest in this pretty
"important" task which i have been working on.

-- Regarding the compiling of the code , i bet i did compile it on my
machine as well,but as you said you have been getting some errors i would
be happy to look back into it. :D

--Regarding the use of ULONG , i actually did not  get into "some random
googling that found old OpenOffice.org code" .But rather i had used it in
some university project in my freshmen year and hence i thought of just
experimenting here too(i actually wanted to know the advantages and
disadvantages of using it here,and that is why i used it) . But yeah i dont
mind getting it off :)

-- I think picking up was a big task here as i had to dig into quite a lot
of code and hence figure out what to use and "where" ...because i am still
figuring out things regarding the UI (as i had mentioned in my last email)
, and i am sure i will make a better impact on the codebase there :)

-- Yes i think Thorsten would surely be able to feel the code in more
detail ( thanks again for giving me a "strict" guidance on the same) .

And yes regarding the easy hack thing...I dont think the name of the easy
hack does make a difference here.I have named it such , just because the
task revolves around this basic bug . Me and Thorsten have been discussing
the exact work we are planning to implement with ,also taking help from the
UI team ( on IRC as well as emails)  and i keep Thorsten informed about the
proceedings.

---And regarding the submission of the work in small pieces , i had talked
to Thorsten on IRC and i think as a mentor he wanted me to show him my
"work in progress" patch , and clear a few doubts in code i had and hence i
have mentioned that in my comments in the code as well as in my last email.
( and clearing up the misunderstanding , i am sure i havent been bad at
language errors except when i was a newbee in the beginning.But i am sure i
am  working on it , but my experience on the codebase and familiarity is
pretty important here while working on a bigger project and not on small
hacks ;-) :D .

Hope this finds you in good health.

Regards,
Janit


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Tor Lillqvist <tml@iki.fi> wrote:

> If you just would have made it so in your patches from the start that your
> code is at least compiled (and thus by necessity free from syntax and
> language errors), it would have been easier to understand that it is a work
> in progress. Sure, of course it should be OK to submit work on a bigger
> task in pieces. So maybe we are being too harsh...
>
> - You still don't do anything to make this code be compiled and linked
> into some library
>
> - Clearly you haven't even compiled it yourself (using some temporary
> local scaffolding) as there are syntax errors (most obviously, no
> corresponding #endif to the #ifndef __SD_TOOLS__
>
> - Isn't "sdtools" a bit odd name for these headers?
>
> - You don't suggest adding anything to any class, just a couple of
> freestanding functions?
>
> - Even if it would be syntactically correct and linked into a library,
> there is of course nothing added anywhere that would invoke any of this code
>
> - Why do you use the type ULONG in a couple of places in the code, how did
> you even find that type which has been obsolete in most LibreOffice code
> for a long time?  suspect the ULONG came from some random googling that
> found old OpenOffice.org code
>
> - Much of the code in your C++ file seems to be picked from here and there
> in the sd tree, with slight spacing changes. Sure, this might be because it
> actually makes sense (and there is nothing wrong as such with that, copying
> small code snippets around is what coders do all the time, there are not
> many ways to write a for loop that iterates over a specific data structure
> etc).
>
> Note that I did not try to figure out what your code actually does, as I
> am not an Impress expert anyway. Maybe Thorsten could...
>
> I wonder if the root of all this horrible misunderstanding of what a
> proper implementation of that "Easy Hack" should include is the "Making it
> possible" part of the Easy Hack title, and the "Please make it possible"
> part of the fdo#41572 title? Maybe that makes it sound as if an actual
> implementation is not desired for the Easy Hack, just a start?
>
> --tml