>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, add() do need to know what the current Buffer is, it Abdelrazak> just need some FuncRequest status via Abdelrazak> theApp->lyxFunc().getStatus(). Yes, but getStatus knows what the current buffer is. >> However, some other functions need this buffer passing because >> theApp won't tell what the current buffer is. Aren't we >> reintroducing the dreaded current_view thingy? Abdelrazak> AFAIS, these functions needs this Buffer passing for Abdelrazak> specific purpose: Abdelrazak> - expandFormats needs to know if there is an opened Abdelrazak> document currently and for the need of Exporter functions. Abdelrazak> - expandFloatListInsert() and expandFloatInsert() need Abdelrazak> some float list from the buffer. Actually they just need a Abdelrazak> BufferParams. The question is: how are we sure that the buffer that is passed as parameter is the same than the one theApp knows about? What are the semantics of these two buffers? If we are doing some processing on a document which is not the current one, how do we make sure that all functions rely on the right document? On nice way of providing context is to pass a cursor. It conveys a lot of information related to this. But it is not always practical. Abdelrazak> But in the feature there would be indeed a notion of Abdelrazak> "current Buffer" accessible through: theApp-> currentView()->currentWorkArea()->bufferView()->buffer() This is what I mean when I say that theApp knows these things. Abdelrazak> You don't want to use that ;-) I prefer to pass Abdelrazak> explicitely what I need and not rely on some indirection Abdelrazak> that may change in the feature. This makes sense only if you are sure that those two informations are the same. Abdelrazak> You may have noticed that most of my cleanup work is about Abdelrazak> removing the need for these indirections. You don't want Abdelrazak> me to re-introduce that do you? ;-) In the case of MenuBackend, you remove the explicit view argument and use (hidden) indirection via lyxApp instead. It might not be the wisest thing to do after all. >> Yes, I'd prefer a single function that does the check in any case. Abdelrazak> I'll do the change then. Thanks. JMarc
