On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:57:03PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > Put it this way: if we have a containing something called X, I don't see > > > a reason for anything else. Xes can be contained by, and contain Xes. > > > > A table only contains 'CellInsets'. No 'MathAlphaInset', no > > 'InsetBibtex'. > > Can does not equal is. I do not see anybody suggesting that a table > directly contains anything other than cell insets.
Ok.. so we have two layers for a Table. Now, what about a 'collapsable inset'. Should this be able to contain a simple MathFracInset or should this be wrapped in some kind of container. Like a InsetText^H^H^H Cell? > Because the alternative (special code to handle Cell differently from > all othe other containing Insets when traversing a hierarchy) is > horribly ugly. > > I still do not see a single reason *at all* that Cell is somehow > conceptually different from any Inset. *shrug* Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
