Re: [Babeldoc-devel] Re: PipelineDocument.toString()

[Bruce M. <br...@mc...>]

Dejan,

Haha - too late for the 1.2.1 - I did that on December 26!!!  Get those fixes 
in for 1.2.2.

I think that Mike is going to implement the changes in 1.3 - can you do it in 
1.2 also?  That would be great.

regards,
Bruce.

On Sunday 28 December 2003 03:38 pm, Dejan Krsmanovic wrote:
> The only problem I see here is that toString was used
> in previous versions for getting document as String.
> There are examples  in documentation where toString is
> used this way. I wrote many pipelines which use
> toString method for accessing content, too.
> On the other hand I agree with Bruce and Mike that
> toString() should return full state of object as
> String - not just content. Note that currently (in 1.2
> release) there is no way to access content of document
> as String so whatever option we choose - it should be
> implemented in 1.2 release too, not just 1.3 (1.4
> stable).
>
> Dejan
> P.S.
> I fixes few bugs in Scanner module but I have updated
> only HEAD branch. I will update 1.2 branch too, and we
> can start thinking about 1.2.1 bugfix release.
>
> --- Bruce McDonald <br...@mc...> wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > Good to see you back.
> >
> > I completely agree with you here.  Your name looks
> > perfect.
> >
> > regards,
> > Bruce.
> >
> > On Saturday 27 December 2003 01:20 pm, Michael
> >
> > Ansley wrote:
> > > Hi, Bruce,
> > >
> > > I noticed the discussion on the users list
> >
> > regarding the
> >
> > > PipelineDocument.toString() method.  In the
> >
> > absence of other
> >
> > > suggestions, I'd like to suggest that:
> > >
> > > a) toString() stay as it is, because I think that
> >
> > any toString() method
> >
> > > should completely describe the object it's called
> >
> > on,
> >
> > > b) we create a new method, say documentToString()
> >
> > or
> >
> > > getDocumentAsString(), which contains the original
> >
> > toString()
> >
> > > functionality.
> > >
> > > I'm disinclined to think of this as a bug, and as
> >
> > such, I don't see any
> >
> > > reason for 1.2 to revert to the old behaviour,
> >
> > although others may
> >
> > > disagree.  However, I would prefer to see 1.3
> >
> > follow the suggestion
> >
> > > outlined above.
> > >
> > > Thoughts...
> > >
> > > Any objections to me creating the new method in
> >
> > 1.3?  Preference for a
> >
> > > name?
> > >
> > >
> > > MikeA
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux
> > Tutorials.
> > Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your
> > skills.  Sign up for IBM's
> > Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the
> > bash shell to sys admin.
> > Click now!
>
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Babeldoc-devel mailing list
> > Bab...@li...
>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/babeldoc-devel
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
> Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
> Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Babeldoc-devel mailing list
> Bab...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/babeldoc-devel