Created attachment 45161 [details]
Patches in unified format updated for 2.2

Thank you for the patches. I will take care of it after the integration of our
CWS swwarnings where we did some code changes like yours to avoid warnings from
different C++ compilers. Maybe some of your code changes is already done.

I can't see the functional difference in sw/source/ui/basesh.cxx 
What worries me more is that in sw/source/ui/uiview/pview.cxx the wrong
initialization order of SwPreviewPrintOptionsDialog is not fixed at the
initialization but at the declaration. In this specific case it makes no
difference but in case of dialogs reordering dialog member controls makes a big
difference.

These patches were first created for an older version (some for 1.1.5 and some
for 2.0.4), and I suppose the patch for basesh.cxx made sense then, but you have
performed the same modification, so now it should be ignored. Sorry about not
noticing it beforehand.

As for the initialization order observation, I thought in most cases the
initialization order in the constructor was more of an indication of developer
intent than the order in the declaration. I tried to understand the code before
creating a patch for it, but it is possible that I overlooked things and that I
did not understand some things correctly. If you can explain the problem in more
detail I can check if it applies to any of these patches. Or you can check them
yourself if you have the time. There's a single file containing all the patches
attached to Issue 73468.

->cyhawk: Usually the order of members is not important. 
In case of dialogs the order of members determines how you can jump from one
control to the next using the tab key. And it determines the relations between
controls (Edits) and their labels.

In other words: Changing the order of the initializer list has no effect to the
code (so it is no defect like all the '0L' changes in your patches) but changing
the declaration _is_ a code change and might introduce new bugs. In one of the
svx pages there is such a change ( issue 77446
svx/source/dialog/hangulhanjadlg.hxx ).

Anything new? Will be take over any part of this patch? And do we have a CWS
assigned to it?

Even swwarnings has not been integrated yet, I will check which code changes are
not covered by swwarnings.
Some code changes will be integrated into CWS swqbf99, stay tuned!

Proposed patches for four files:

atrfrm.cxx, accepted, fixed in CWS swqbf99.

basesh.cxx: rejected, because no real change found in patch?!

pview.cxx: rejected, because change of behavior not acceptable. On the other
hand the problem (wrong sequence of member/initialisation) has been addressed
and fixed in CWS swwarnings.

xmltbli.cxx: partly accepted and fixed in CWS swqbf99. I changed the occurrence
of 0L in ternary operators like proposed because I can imagine that this could
cause trouble to some compilers. But I didn't change any "sal_Int32 nBla = 0L"
into "sal_Int32 nBla(0L)" because I do not know the reason for such a change.

Verified in CWS swqbf99.

This issue is closed automatically and wasn't rechecked in a current version of
OOo. The fixed issue should be integrated in OOo since more than half a year. If
you think this issue isn't fixed in a current version (OOo 3.1), please reopen
it and change the field 'Target Milestone' accordingly.

If you want to download a current version of OOo =>
http://download.openoffice.org/index.html
If you want to know more about the handling of fixed/verified issues =>
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Handle_fixed_verified_issues