On 05/25/2012 05:50 PM, Sl�vek Banko wrote:
> On Friday 25 of May 2012 22:03:59 Fran�ois ANDRIOT wrote:
>> Le 25/05/2012 16:39, Sl�vek Banko a �crit :
>>> Darrell, David, Fran�ois,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sl�vek
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Fran�ois
>>
> 
> 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.
> 
> Sl�vek

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.