On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > >> That might be enough. But it's not clear to me if this causes problems > >> with cut and paste. > > > > Sure there will problems, but right now we already have special handling > > for e.g. and three hundred inset function or so taking a buffer > > And what's the real problem with that? If DocIterator had a buffer_ member, > we could just pass around a DocIterator & to inset functions that need the > parent hierarchy. > > > argument. Also there are problems in mathed as there's no flawless > > MathData -> string -> MathData due to unknown buffer settings. > > What was the reason for streaming into latex internally in mathed? I cannot > remember. > > > So putting some extra work in the case of insets transefered across > > buffers might be the smaller evil in the end. > > > > Yes, that's quite a bit of work, but something that has been in the back > > of my mind for a while... > > Ugh. So you are planning to reintroduce back pointers?
I am not sure about the whole thing. If so, it would be something that wouldn't change during an inset's lifetime, so it should be conceptionally simpler to handle than we had we the inset parent. But as I said, I am not sure whether it's a good idea. Andre'
