On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:33:39PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:20:58PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> >> > I think you could try to convert the math dispatch to your scheme
> >> > without affecting the rest of LyX. This would give some reference
> >> > implementation of the scheme without duplicated work...
> >>
> >> I was thinking... how about implementing factory.C in a similar way also?
> >>
> >> Every inset could register a constructor standalone function that returns
> >> a base inset given some data.
> >>
> >> Does it make sense?
> >
> > Yes. [And works fine, I do this in my day time job all over the place].
>
> I must admit that me also. ;-)
>
> > The only tricky part is to get the 'seemingly unused' static dummy
> > variables
> > whose constructors are used for the registration on startup from a
> > library in a binary ;-}
>
> I don't understand this. What I've done (I don't know if it is good practice
> or not is nor if it would work on other systems):
>
> class registery {
> public:
> static registery & get();
> list<pair<identifier, callback> > cblist;
> private:
> registery() {};
> }
>
> struct register {
> register(identifier id, callback cb) { registery::get().push_back(
> make_pair(id ,cb))};
> };
>
>
> And I add a
>
> register reg(id, &cb);
Where exactly?
On file scope?
Does that work if your InsetXXX.o equivalents are placed in a library or
only for direct linking?
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...)
