[Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
sbergman at redhat.com
Tue Oct 4 23:58:53 PDT 2011
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> 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 ...
Yes, that's how I would have done it, too. Pushed now, thanks again.
(I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions
are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at
More information about the LibreOffice