On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > that would require each cursor to know not only its container, but the tree
> > of containers...
>
> No, that would require the cursor being a representation of the _path_ from
> the tree root to the current position. Sort of a stack: push inset when
> entering an inset, pop when leaving one. The "actual position" is the top
> of the stack.
Tree, single path down the tree, they are both no cleaner than the current
system IMHO
> > I don't understand why we have :
> >
> > inset->updateInset(some_other_inset)
> >
> > AND
> >
> > inset->updateInsetInInset(some_other_inset)
>
> I have not even understood what updateInset and updateInsetInInset are
> supposed to do.
they are calls to containing insets to update the contents of some_other_inset
and reflect all necessary size etc. insets
> > nope, bv->theLockInset() is always the top-level locked inset (I think).
> > The chain of inset->the_locking_inset has to be follwoed to get to the current
> > active locked inset
>
> Is the "full text" an inset?
no.
> > I don't think so. An inset does not know which inset contains it.
>
> So what are all these 'onwer_' pointers used for?
hmm, yes. and that contradicts what Juergen just said.
Yes, that's ugly, but not really complex ...
john
--
"Faced with the prospect of rereading this book, I would rather have
my brains ripped out by a plastic fork."
- Charles Cooper on "Business at the Speed of Thought"
