On Friday 27 September 2002 11:52 am, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > > André, > > > > I take it that this is commented out for now because > > RefInset derives from CommandInset rather than InsetCommand? > > // cmd.view()->owner()->getDialogs()->showRef(this); > > Yes. This is part of the "proof of concept code" for the > "inset unification". But as the latter was voted down I had to > remove the dialog interaction "just to make it work". > > > I ask because I had a go last night at turning John's > > rewrite of the label dialog into working code. It would > > presumably result in a similar call > > // cmd.view()->owner()->getDialogs()->showLabel(this); > > which I guess would fail also, for similar reasons. > > Indeed. > > Note that (short of using the IMNSHO optimal solution of > "unified insets") this might be achievable by using lfun > dispatch to pop up the dialogs. But that would probably mean a > bit more work on the gui<->core interface to avoid direct > pointers/references and use lfuns for communication instead.
Indeed. Did you see my suggestion for how that should be achieved ;-) Now I see why you were on my side from the start; you actually understood what I was talking about. Incidentally, I don' remember you being voted down. I remember you swamping slow moving tortoises with too much too soon ;-) > [Or have two copys of the dialogs, one for non-math, one for > math *urgs*] *urgs*. I guess that inset-unification would also lead to a single label inset as a clickable button rather than the current nastiness. Should you decide to put IU forward again, you may count on my vote ;-) Incidentally, what were the reasons that people put forward against IU? It appears that today is a smiley day ater all. Angus
