On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:34:38AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Michael Gerz schrieb: > >Guys, > > > >with Dov's latest patch (#1820) committed, I was able to produce a CT > >patch that does not touch the present (non-)const-ness of OutputParams. > > > >Since I consider this bug a major CT bug (text inside deleted insets > >is displayed as unchanged text), I would like you to reconsider the > >patch for 1.5.0. > > > >In a certain sense, it is a one-liner because it effects current > >behavior only with this statement: > > > >- Change const & change = pimpl_->lookupChange(i); > >+ Change const & change = runparams.inDeletedInset ? > >runparams.changeOfDeletedInset > >+ : > >pimpl_->lookupChange(i); > > > >Implementation notes: > > > >In order to fix the bug, it is necessary to pass information down the > >call stack. Prior to #1820, it would have been possible to make a > >local copy of the (const) outputparams, modify them locally, and pass > >the modified params down. However, it turns out that Dov needs to pass > >information _up_. Therefore, IMHO it is not a good idea to create > >local copies of outputParams in the same method. Instead, I modify the > >needed parameter at the beginning and reset them at the end > >(increment/decrement of inDeletedInset). > BTW: If you still don't like to add this information to OutputParams, I > have to add more parameters to several methods, e.g. to: > > void Paragraph::Pimpl::simpleTeXSpecialChars(Buffer const & buf, > BufferParams const & bparams, > odocstream & os, > TexRow & texrow, > OutputParams & runparams, > Font & running_font, > Font & basefont, > Font const & outerfont, > bool & open_font, > Change & running_change, > Layout const & style, > pos_type & i, > unsigned int & column, > value_type const c) > > IMHO 14 parameters are enough. Don't you think that a container like > OutputParams is the better solution?
I am all for a container in such cases. Although i've seen functions with 57 parameters in real life, 14 is already far too much. Andre'
