>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, multiple nested include won't be allowed in my
Abdelrazak> described scheme so by default a document would be opened
Abdelrazak> using a MasterBuffer and any child document in a normal
Abdelrazak> Buffer. Or we can inverse the naming if you want: by
Abdelrazak> default use a Buffer class and child documents would use a
Abdelrazak> ChildBuffer. But, as I said, I am not sure the multiple
Abdelrazak> level of nested document is a bad feature. I just think it
Abdelrazak> is bad practice in my particular usage. There might be
Abdelrazak> some people that think otherwise.
I am sure many people rely on this feature. Moreover, the difference
between the two classes will be so small that I am not sure there is a
big gain.
>> 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...
Abdelrazak> I think now is as good time as ever to do this. It makes a
Abdelrazak> lot of sense to me.
I also think it makes sense, but there may be many unintended
consequences. These are 5 lines of code that may introduce many small
bugs.
JMarc
