[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: sw/source wizards/com xmloff/source

[Julien Nabet]

 sw/source/core/access/accframe.cxx             |    2 +-
 sw/source/core/layout/tabfrm.cxx               |    2 +-
 wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.java |    2 +-
 wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.py   |    2 +-
 xmloff/source/text/txtparae.cxx                |    2 +-
 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

New commits:
commit f8adeb290048fbb5aa104997145d7a5a421efa2a
Author: Julien Nabet <serval2412 at yahoo.fr>
Date:   Tue Feb 25 21:55:23 2014 +0100

    (T/t)herfor -> (T/t)herefore
    
    Change-Id: I7678dcccc3afa8ecde5160a3f0d731b923f3bfca

diff --git a/sw/source/core/access/accframe.cxx b/sw/source/core/access/accframe.cxx
index 34e7210..b95d739 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/access/accframe.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/access/accframe.cxx
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
 using namespace sw::access;
 
 // Regarding visibility (or in terms of accessibility: regarding the showing
-// state): A frame is visible and therfor contained in the tree if its frame
+// state): A frame is visible and therefore contained in the tree if its frame
 // size overlaps with the visible area. The bounding box however is the
 // frame's paint area.
 sal_Int32 SwAccessibleFrame::GetChildCount( SwAccessibleMap& rAccMap,
diff --git a/sw/source/core/layout/tabfrm.cxx b/sw/source/core/layout/tabfrm.cxx
index 3624da6..2b3d285 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/layout/tabfrm.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/layout/tabfrm.cxx
@@ -4447,7 +4447,7 @@ SwCellFrm::~SwCellFrm()
     if( pMod )
     {
         // At this stage the lower frames aren't destroyed already,
-        // therfor we have to do a recursive dispose.
+        // therefore we have to do a recursive dispose.
         SwRootFrm *pRootFrm = getRootFrm();
         if( pRootFrm && pRootFrm->IsAnyShellAccessible() &&
             pRootFrm->GetCurrShell() )
diff --git a/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.java b/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.java
index cdc7b8b..ec3b6b2 100644
--- a/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.java
+++ b/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.java
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ public class UnoDialog implements EventNames
     /**
      * The problem with setting the visibility of controls is that changing the current step
      * of a dialog will automatically make all controls visible. The PropertyNames.PROPERTY_STEP property always wins against
-     * the property "visible". Therfor a control meant to be invisible is placed on a step far far away.
+     * the property "visible". Therefore a control meant to be invisible is placed on a step far far away.
      * @param controlname the name of the control
      * @param iStep  change the step if you want to make the control invisible
      */
diff --git a/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.py b/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.py
index f511ebb..81484fc 100644
--- a/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.py
+++ b/wizards/com/sun/star/wizards/ui/UnoDialog.py
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ class UnoDialog(object):
     changing the current step of a dialog will automatically make
     all controls visible. The PropertyNames.PROPERTY_STEP property
     always wins against the property "visible".
-    Therfor a control meant to be invisible is placed on a step far far away.
+    Therefore a control meant to be invisible is placed on a step far far away.
     Afterwards the step property of the dialog has to be set with
     "repaintDialogStep". As the performance of that method is very bad it
     should be used only once for all controls
diff --git a/xmloff/source/text/txtparae.cxx b/xmloff/source/text/txtparae.cxx
index 95f6f0ce5..c997d09a 100644
--- a/xmloff/source/text/txtparae.cxx
+++ b/xmloff/source/text/txtparae.cxx
@@ -2129,7 +2129,7 @@ void XMLTextParagraphExport::exportParagraph(
     if( bHasContentEnum )
     {
         // For the auto styles, the multi property set helper is only used
-        // if hard attributes are existing. Therfor, it seems to be a better
+        // if hard attributes are existing. Therefore, it seems to be a better
         // strategy to have the TextSection property separate, because otherwise
         // we always retrieve the style names even if they are not required.
         if( bAutoStyles )