Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> This is just an idea to enforce the idea of a Master
Abdelrazak> buffer that will care about LateX preample (and LyX
Abdelrazak> layout?). As far as I understand, child buffers ignore
Abdelrazak> some LateX things. It perhaps make sense to remove these
Abdelrazak> things and put them in a new MasterBuffer class. I am not
Abdelrazak> sure I am clear here, please ignore me if that is too
Abdelrazak> complicated to explain.
A master document is a normal document, so it uses class Buffer. What
would happen when you add an include inset? You reallocate a new
MasterBuffer object and move things around?
No, multiple nested include won't be allowed in my described scheme so
by default a document would be opened using a MasterBuffer and any child
document in a normal Buffer. Or we can inverse the naming if you want:
by default use a Buffer class and child documents would use a ChildBuffer.
But, as I said, I am not sure the multiple level of nested document is a
bad feature. I just think it is bad practice in my particular usage.
There might be some people that think otherwise.
One rather radical approach I've been things about is to redefine
Buffer::params() like:
BufferParams & Buffer::params()
{
return getMasterBuffer()->pimpl_->params;
}
This would mean that only the master's params are visible, but it may
have a lot of strange side effects...
I think now is as good time as ever to do this. It makes a lot of sense
to me.
Abdel.
