On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:30:17AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >I guess in the long run this is not ideal... > > /me neither. I prefer simple class that do simple thing good. Cursor > should not be a gateway to everything in the LyX memory structure.
It was a fairly uniform improvement over the previous situation a while ago. > >And yes, I know who's to blame... > > > >>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. > > > >Indeed. This is no advantage. Better pass stuff down as arguments > >instead of relying on globals. > > Wait, there is a misunderstanding here. I am not using the theApp to > look for the current view, only to get access to the LyXFunc. It is my > understanding that there shall be one unique LyXFunc and that > theApp->lyxFunc() is the official way to access it. If there are really two singletons why should one 'belong' to the other? I'd even consider a global stand-alone dispatch() instead of pulling in frontend stuff. > The origin of the misunderstanding is that LyXFunc still depends on one > (unique) LyXView. I will get rid of that assumption when FuncRequest > contains a pointer to the relevant LyXView a.k.a the LyXView ID given by > the Gui class. > > >theApp->xxx is indeed current_view in disguise. > > Only temporary. So keep it in mind... Andre'
