25 May
2012
25 May
'12
11:21 p.m.
On 05/25/2012 05:50 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
On Friday 25 of May 2012 22:03:59 François ANDRIOT
wrote:
OK,
I see how that happened, but I still don't think I could have discerned
whether the 'it' at 496 went with the 'it' from 475 or the 'it'
from 485 since
it is within the code-block for TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, bool>::Iterator
it, but it is _not_ expressly in the code-block for
TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, int>::Iterator unread_it
How would you know which 'it' needed to go to 'unread_it' or
'it' in this
case? When we went over it before, the way was to start with the inner-most
'it' and work out from there to separate code-blocks. That didn't work in
this
case. Any other tricks?
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Le 25/05/2012 16:39, Slávek Banko a écrit :
Great. I did not simply return the patch, but I wanted such a solution, as
thou hast sent. I will test it and if it is okay, I push it into the GIT.
Slávek Darrell, David, François,
I found that the first part of the commit c94de3af causes incorrect
computation of unread messages in KMail - in the tray icon. Every time
you switch to any folder, the number of unread messages is increased.
I could easily revert that part, but I fear that it will return a problem
with gcc 4.7. You look at it? I do not know if a problem does not even
rename "it" in the second part - for KOrganizer.
Slávek
Hello,
I think that you should keep the current patch (do not revert), then add
the following:
in file kmail/kmsystemtray.cpp on line 496, you should replace:
int diff = unread - it.data();
with
int diff = unread - unread_it.data();
I did not test it though, since I do not use kmail at all.
François