>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> ++locked_undo_ Andre> --locked_undo_ Andre> woudl scale better in the long run. What when blocked undos Andre> should becme part of an even larger blob? Actually I think now that this is not the correct way forward. I rather see some thing like a startUndoGroup/endUndoGroup pair of commands (with ++ and -- as you propose) and a change to the undo structure to a stack of stacks. This will allow to group a series of undo operations as a single action. When outside of an undo group, there would be only one action per substack. In the case of Replace All, for example, each replace action would be one entry, but the required memory would be much less than the whole document. This solution would fix two problems: - the fact that in some cases one action leads to several undo steps. This would be fixed if lyxFunc::dispatch had a pair of startUndo/endUndo calls, ensuring that all changes due to an lfun lead to a single undo operation. - when a global operation is done on the buffer, only individual changes are kept. JMarc
