[Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-commits] .: stoc/source

[Kevin Hunter]

At 4:15pm -0400 Tue, 04 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the patch. I think the real intent always was to
> actually look through all the returned getSuperclasses(), and the
> error that superclasses past the first one are effectively ignored
> has never been noticed.

Excellent.  Was wondering, but don't yet know LO well enough to make 
such declarations.  Well, modulo any errors on my part, the logic I sent 
in patch 1 should be the same as what was originally there, but I hope 
easier to read/see for comparison/fixing.

Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just 
confirmed was the original intent, but is untested.  (It was a random 
drive by patching.)  Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now 
changes the semantics of it actually used to do.  If you know how to 
test it ...

Cheers,

Kevin