...to use single ASCII character literals "more directly" in the OUString API
(instead of having to go via an intermediary OUString ctor call). Especially
useful for character literals that are defined as const variables or via macros
("direct" uses of character literals in the OUString API can often simply be
replaced with single-character string literals, for improved readability).
(The functions overloaded for OUStringLiteral1 are those that are actually used
by the existing LO code; more could potentially be added. The asymmetry in the
operator ==/!= parameter types is by design, though---writing code like
'x' == s
is an abomination that shall not be abetted.)
Change-Id: Ic5264714be7439eed56b5dfca6ccaee277306f1f
Also remove the tools/solar.h included from tools/debug.hxx. The include of solar.h
header was necessary in some cases because of a macro or a typedef that was needed.
Change-Id: Ia6e15d5c2571c58c9e9138b0d0a7f08ae88053c9
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/11075
Reviewed-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@gmail.com>
To be used in regression testing and similar scenarios, where the output ODF
is *not* intended to be further manipulated in LibreOffice. An environment
variable LIBO_ONEWAY_STABLE_ODF_EXPORT is used to toggle this behaviour. I am
not 100% sure whether the generated ODF with the hack toggled on is even fully
correct, but correctness is not the purpose of the hack anyway.
Two classes of issues handled: 1) Automatic style names and 2) use of
randomness.
For class 1), when the hack toggle is in effect, we generate the names at
first as strings based on all the properties of the style, and sort them based
on those, and then rename them (for brevity in the output) to the "normal"
form of a short prefix plus a number (like "P12").
Sure, it would have been better to just figure out *why* the automatic style
naming currently is not stable in the first place, but outputs the styles in
different order (with some styles being assigned different numbers) in
separate invokations of LibreOffice), but I was unable to understand that.
Possibly this code could be used in all cases, except that it does break some
unit test (can't recall which right now). I don't know whether that is simply
because the unit test assumes too much knowledge of the internal workings of
the automatic style name generation, or whether the generated ODF is actually
invalid.
For 2), I found a handful of places where randomness was used to generated
various kinds of identifiers in ODF output. I changed those to just use large
(64-bit) non-overlapping integers instead. I assume there *is* a point in the
original code in each case that explains why randomness is needed, so the hack
definitely needs to be optional and used only for the above mentioned
scenarios.
Change-Id: I17b657197e38bcf24abdfe61ad4a277f4339eeae
I guess "impastp" could stand for "IMPort AutoSTyle Pool" but no idea what the
"l" means, I chose the name "impastpl.cxx" just to match "impastpl.hxx"
Change-Id: I6e03df47f4782bfe5bd959d9b52f1fb666a3086f
