Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Would it make sense to make a new MasterBuffer class that
Abdelrazak> derives from Buffer?
No, the master buffer is just a pointer to yet another document, which
happens to have a InsetInclude pointing to us. I suspect there is
something that is not clear in your mind regarding the master buffer
business.
Yes, I was not sure if a child buffer could also be the master of some
other buffer at the same time.
Yes and no: No, because there is only one master buffer in a document
hierachy, and yes, because a child can also include a document.
Obviously, it is possible because I use
this feature in some of my own documents. But that does not mean that
this is a good feature...
A child buffer can include an own child document (grand child :-) ). And the
grand child can have a child, too etc.
But all these children return the upper most buffer in getMasterBuffer.
Ah... I did not get that, thanks!
It this is not a good feature and we don't want to allow multiple level
of nested buffer then the MasterBuffer class would make sends.
This is a good idea, and it works, but I see no need for a MasterBuffer
class.
This is just an idea to enforce the idea of a Master buffer that will
care about LateX preample (and LyX layout?). As far as I understand,
child buffers ignore some LateX things. It perhaps make sense to remove
these things and put them in a new MasterBuffer class. I am not sure I
am clear here, please ignore me if that is too complicated to explain.
Abdel.
