<HTML><BODY><br><blockquote><div id=""><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14270956980000000137_BODY">>> and 11012?<br>><br>> That one certainly looks like a bug, yes.<br><br>But reading the code a bit, and especially this comment earlier in the<br>same function:<br><br> // LO internal gradient -> PDF shading type:<br> // * GradientStyle_LINEAR: axial shading, using sampled-function<br>with 2 samples<br> // [t=0:colorStart, t=1:colorEnd]<br> // * GradientStyle_AXIAL: axial shading, using sampled-function<br>with 3 samples<br> // [t=0:colorEnd, t=0.5:colorStart, t=1:colorEnd]<br><br>I think it is obvious that the missing break in fact is intentional<br>there. Testing would have indicated that, I guess.</div></div></div></blockquote>Explicit comment preferrable than implicit debugging =).<br><blockquote><div id=""><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14270956980000000137_BODY"><br><br>(Whether translating LO gradients to PDF shading types in the way<br>indicated makes sense or not is a totally different question... Would<br>you want to work on that?)</div></div></div></blockquote>It's nice for me.<br><blockquote><div id=""><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14270956980000000137_BODY"><br><br>What do we learn from this? Don't immediately assume that what you or<br>your editor think is a bug is not intentional. Instead, think harder,<br>and if necessary, test what the code actually does at run-time.</div></div></div></blockquote>I always check warnings. Implicit and non-default behaviour should be documented or made explicit.<br><blockquote><div id=""><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14270956980000000137_BODY"><br><br>--tml</div></div></div></blockquote><br><br>Fedor Strizhnev<br>Федор Стрижнёв.<br><style type="text/css"></style></BODY></HTML>