Cleanup: Make CPDF_Annot::m_pAnnotDict private.

Cleanup: Make CPDF_Annot::m_pAnnotDict private.

Remove dead code in CPDF_Annot as well.

R=tsepez@chromium.org

Committed: https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/b7eb193dcec1594952cbc1dca356a40f66724159

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:36:46]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:36:53]

Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:40:32]

Patchset #1 (id:40001) has been deleted

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:54:36]

Patchset #1 (id:60001) has been deleted

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:58:40]

Patchset #1 (id:80001) has been deleted

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:59:45]

thestig@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tsepez@chromium.org

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 20:59:46]

No behavior changes.

[Tom Sepez, 2015-06-05 21:15:30]

Nice. LGTM.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
File core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h:522: #define ANNOTFLAG_TOGGLENOVIEW  0x100
nit: blank line following, so long as you're at it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp
File fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.c...
fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp:69: if(pAnnotDict->KeyExist("IT"))
This, and the "FT" key below, might be handled the same way as the "F" flags in
some cleanup down the road.  I'd like to have a world where an object that's a
"specialization" of a dictionary has methods for the expected keys (to avoid
typos and such). But later.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annot...
File fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annothandler.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annot...
fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annothandler.cpp:94: ASSERT(pPDFAnnot != NULL);
nit: these two asserts are pointless as we'll segv soon enough.

[Tom Sepez, 2015-06-05 21:26:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
File core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h:514: #define ANNOTFLAG_INVISIBLE     1
nit: as long as you're going to make these line up, I'd be tempted to pad them
with 0x0 to four digits so that they all line up.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 22:25:48]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
File core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h:514: #define ANNOTFLAG_INVISIBLE     1
On 2015/06/05 21:26:18, Tom Sepez wrote:
> nit: as long as you're going to make these line up, I'd be tempted to pad them
> with 0x0 to four digits so that they all line up.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/core/include/fpdfdoc/f...
core/include/fpdfdoc/fpdf_doc.h:522: #define ANNOTFLAG_TOGGLENOVIEW  0x100
On 2015/06/05 21:15:29, Tom Sepez wrote:
> nit: blank line following, so long as you're at it.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp
File fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.c...
fpdfsdk/src/fpdf_ext.cpp:69: if(pAnnotDict->KeyExist("IT"))
On 2015/06/05 21:15:30, Tom Sepez wrote:
> This, and the "FT" key below, might be handled the same way as the "F" flags
in
> some cleanup down the road.  I'd like to have a world where an object that's a
> "specialization" of a dictionary has methods for the expected keys (to avoid
> typos and such). But later.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annot...
File fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annothandler.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1157773012/diff/100001/fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annot...
fpdfsdk/src/fsdk_annothandler.cpp:94: ASSERT(pPDFAnnot != NULL);
On 2015/06/05 21:15:30, Tom Sepez wrote:
> nit: these two asserts are pointless as we'll segv soon enough.

Ok, removed a whole bunch of them.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-06-05 22:28:11]

Committed patchset #3 (id:140001) manually as
b7eb193dcec1594952cbc1dca356a40f66724159 (presubmit successful).