On Tuesday 13 March 2001 13:27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> Attached is a fixed FormInclude. It's quite a large patch as I
> John> changed insetinclude a bit.
>
> It is fine with me and I could apply it, but I'd like first to hear
> from Angus wrt the changes in Params and also where and how the
> buffer_ parameter should be handled. I know he did a lot of work on
> these problems...
SIgh...
John has added a "Buffer const * buffer;" to InsetIncludeParams. I'm sure
Lars and Jürgen were pretty elequent about why storing a Buffer * in ANY
inset was a bad thing and that we should move to Buffer transparent insets.
Ie, we should pass a (Buffer const &) to any inset method that required it,
rather than store it.
I made a patch that did just that, but Lars said that this should go in a
branch and I've been pretty busy...
So...
let's have some decisions from the Man At The Top (ie Lars):
1. Which way to go: store or pass Buffer in insets.
2. Accept this patch or not. I don't feel able to make a decision because:
a. I'm ambivalent.
b. I'm tired!
If the decision is to pass Buffer, then I've got a patch that probably isn't
toooooooooooooooo out of date if (someone else) would like to take it up.
Angus
