Hi Jamie, AFAICS your reasoning is correct. But I may be overlooking something too. Bert On 01/29/2013 04:06 PM, James Teh wrote: > outputPos maps input positions to output positions. At the beginning > of the call, cursorPos is the cursor position in the input. Therefore, > unless I'm missing something, the output cursorPos should just be > outputPos[cursorPos]. Is there a reason this isn't the case? This > would simplify the code a great deal and thereby eliminate existing bugs. > > Jamie > > On 30/01/2013 1:03 AM, John J. Boyer wrote: >> I don't understand this question. outputPos is an array. cursorPos is a >> single value. What would be the ideal value of cursorPos? There may be >> differing opinions on this. >> >> John >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:53:28PM +1000, James Teh wrote: >>> Hi all, especially John, >>> >>> Currently, there are still some bugs in the calculation of the output >>> cursor position in lou_translate. I can detail these in a separate >>> email >>> if necessary. However, I'm wondering whether it is simpler to just set >>> cursorPos based on outputPos just before returning the translation, >>> rather than having separate code for it. Is there any reason cursorPos >>> is currently determined separately from outputPos? To put it another >>> way, is there any reason that cursorPos should ever be different to >>> outputPos[inputCursorPos], where inputCursorPos is the value of >>> cursorPos when the function was called? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jamie >>> >>> -- >>> James Teh >>> Director, NV Access Limited >>> Email: jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ >>> Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 >>> For a description of the software, to download it and links to >>> project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com >> > For a description of the software, to download it and links to project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com