Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't see this one. I saw only
>>
>> | The problem with this is that the BufferView is sometimes redone
>> | and you point to a non valid pointer (the problems we had
>> | especially in the beginning with InsetText after cleaning it up
>> | a bit, but IMO we still can have this problem!).
>
> The choice is probably: Make a safe cache or pass a BufferView
> around.
>
> As I don't have problems with math, I'd guess a safe cache is
> possible, but we've never had more than one BufferView, so I don't
> know for sure.
>
> The first option gives clean interfaces and a potential mess,
> the second a messy interface but less chance of a mess.
Doesn't this sound contradictory to you?
> I'd probably go for the first one, but I wanted to make sure we are
> aware of the consequences.
Ok. I'm aware ;-)
I've also been thinking further about my suggestion. I think that
'has a dialog' is cleaner than 'is an inset with a dialog':
class DialogInvoker {
public:
DialogInvoker(string const & name, InsetBase & parent)
: name_(name), parent_(parent) {}
void show() {
BufferView * bv = parent_->view();
if (!bv)
return;
ostringstream data;
parent_.write(data);
data << "\\end_inset\n";
bv->owner()->getDialogs.show(name_, data.str(), &parent_);
}
void hide() {
BufferView * bv = parent_->view();
if (!bv)
return;
bv->owner()->getDialogs.hide(name_);
}
private:
string const name_;
InsetBase & parent_;
};
class InsetCitation : public InsetCommand {
public:
InsetCitation() : dialog_("citation", this) {}
~InsetCitation() { dialog_.hide(); }
void edit(BufferView * bv, ...) {
view_ = bv->owner()->view();
dialog_->show();
}
private:
DialogInvoker dialog_;
};
--
Angus
