On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 04:13:27PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: > ...or rather, it's bad code, but its removal good... > > So, shall I just check it in and wait for others to notice possible > problems? It works for me as far as I can tell.
Yes. [Actually I think it is some kind of leftover of my doings, so in case somebody complains send them to me...] > (BTW what precisely *is* inset locking? <ducks and runs> Who knows... Well, my understanding: It's a way to pass events (FuncRequests) to the 'proper inset'. The toplevel text knows which inset is locked etc. IMO this is the wrong aproach. The 'active' inset is either determined by (x,y) position (for a mouseclick) or by cursor position (for everything else). So instead of having the locking we could directly dispatch to the proper inset. This begs the question why we still have it: The problem is the 'cursor', currently there is no such thing as a global cursor, it is rather determined by the local cursor of the locked inset. See the problem? Egg & Hen, and to get rid of it we must redo both. 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...)
