Re: [gtkmm] Gtkmm-forge digest, Vol 1 #187 - 15 msgs

[Carl Nygard <cjnygard fast net>]

On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 15:01, gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net
wrote:

> Changed by murrayc usa net 
> 
> --- shadow/90148	Thu Aug  8 16:01:40 2002
> +++ shadow/90148.tmp.1203	Fri Aug  9 02:53:54 2002
> @@ -72,6 +72,17 @@
>  iterator&, const iterator&)'! Shouldn't we just get rid of it?
>  The same goes for delete_interactive_text() but here we have an
>  additional problem: shall we really discard the boolean return value
>  (which shows whether text was actually deleted)? Is there some kind of
>  'invalid' or 'eof' iterator that we could return in the case that no
>  text was deleted?
> +
> +------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net  2002-08-09 02:53 -------
> +Yes, if both the start and end would be equal after the method has
> +finished then there is no need to return both as well as the return
> +iterator.
> +
> +Maybe you could use end() to show that the deletion has not happened.
> +I don't think that end() would ever be the real "location where text
> +was deleted." That's what find() would use to show that something was
> +not found. Or maybe you could add an overload that takes a bool&
> +parameter.
> 

If one calls delete_text(myIter, end()), shouldn't this work fine, and
also return end() as the iterator?  In this case it would signify proper
deletion of text from myIter to the end of the buffer.

BTW, in which case would delete_text() fail?

I almost reopened the bug, but I'll leave that to y'all to decide.

Regards,
Carl