Vendors Name via UNO API / Basic Macros
sos at pmgroup.be
Tue Nov 26 05:40:37 PST 2013
On 26/11/2013 13:56, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
>> Thomas Krumbein píše v Pá 15. 11. 2013 v 15:43 +0100:
>>>>> Well, this change was a small technical thing - but with a very big
>>>>> influence on typical market applications. Every custom macro application
>>>>> with dialogs or forms for user interfaces is influenced if dialogs/forms
>>>>> using Date/time fields.
>>>> Have you filed a bugreport, please? A minimal example of the macro that
>>>> fails would be most appreciated.
>>> Well - it´s not a bug, because you mentioned the change in release-notes
>>> of version 4.1.
>> There are many ways how to make the problem less annoying in Basic
>> ;-) - we control the Basic implementation, so can work around many
>> things, and if we are lucky, this will be one of them. I am sure
>> we'd try to do that before the release with the incompatible change
>> if we knew early.
> Well, I considered doing some "magic" that when the property is
> written, if it gets an integer, interpret it the old way and if it
> gets a UNO Date struct, interpret it the obvious (new) way. Someone
> (Stephan Bergmann?) told me that one could do that for attributes but
> not (pseudo?)properties (or something like that); the Basic
> implementation (bridge?) would refuse to even pass a value of the
> wrong type to the C++ code. I don't see how to achieve it short of
> special-casing this into the bridge / other parts of the Basic
> implementation. Which sounds like a guaranteed subscription for
> maintenance nightmares, and thus not the best of ideas. Would the
> Basic implementation / UNO bridge people be willing to actually have
> that kind of special-casing?
>>> What´s happend, you can read my article on my homepage. It is in german
>>> language but I am sure, you get the context ;)
>> I am sorry, cannot get the context :-( Can you please turn it into a
>> minimal example of what used to work, and send it here? Or even better,
>> file the bugreport, and send here the link?
> Another user already did that: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/68751
> It already led to concrete mitigation steps (in the form of utility
> functions to convert between the Basic native date type and UNO Date,
> Time and DateTime) in 4.1.3 (correctly documented in 4.1.4).
> If anybody has concrete actionable ideas on how to sweeten the bitter
> pill (short of "rollback the change"), we sure can consider it.
why not a extra property , "date" = isodate as it was (all old code can
"cdate" = new way
More information about the LibreOffice