On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:33:39PM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote: > I'm just saying once more: We have the need for leaves to acces > information higher in the tree. Can we agree on that?
Yes. Although one of my major points is that this happens less often than one would expect. > Your approach requires impose this need of information into the source > code by threading all the methods down to the leaves in the > data-structure. Indeed. > With the other approach, you do not need to do this. Indeed. > Well, I guess you understand this, and we simply disagree. Indeed ;-) > I just think that it's a suboptimal design, because it skews the > responsibility, and complicates the code. See above. > This structure implies that each inset has to know what N kinds of insets > needs. No, interaction between insets is usually minimal. Please come up with concrete examples relevant to LyX. > The other way, each inset only needs to know how to handle it's own > business. > > I think maybe you overestimate the amount of work involved in keeping > back-links alive. Probably. But as I said: There have been seven years of work on LyX and something as basic a 'undo' still keeps crashing on me. > It is really no big deal, and IMO it gives you > better code and more possibilities. That's exactly my point for my version... > Can we agree to switch sides at 16.00, and then suddenly turn > around on a plate, and argue the other part's case? Ok, why not. May I cut&paste from your mails? And I've got to leave at 6 anyway. Andre' -- André Pönitz .............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
