On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:58:44AM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> 2. Example usage of string2params, in factory.C's createInset:
>
> case LFUN_INSET_INSERT: {
> string const name = cmd.getArg(0);
>
> if (name == "bibitem") {
> InsetCommandParams icp;
> InsetCommandMailer::string2params(cmd.argument, icp);
> return new InsetBibitem(icp);
> } else ...
>
> [...]
>
> 2. Replacement for string2params.
>
> case LFUN_INSET_INSERT: {
> string const name = cmd.getArg(0);
>
> if (name == "bibitem") {
> istringstream is(cmd.argument);
> InsetCommandStreamer ics(name);
> is >> ics;
> return new InsetBibitem(ics.params);
> } else ...
>
> Is this demonstrably better than the interface above?
Hm. Not this way.
> My personal conclusion is that the present interface is sufficient,
> but I'm willing to hear your arguments too.
Don't know.
Well... we have a static function
InsetCommandMailer:: static void string2params(std::string const &, std::string
const & name, InsetCommandParams &);
i.e. a function that basically fills InsetCommandParams.
I could imagine implementing this as a member function of InsetCommandParams
InsetCommandParams::create(std::string const &, std::string const & name)
or even a constructor:
InsetCommandParams::InsetCommandParams(std::string const &, std::string const & name)
and the user code would look like
if (name == "bibitem") {
return new InsetBibitem(InsetCommandParams(cmd.argument));
} else ...
Now, I see that this clashs with the constructor of InsetCommandParams.
But that's not a conceptional problem.
In fact, InsetBibitem could have a constructor from a string and user
code would look like
if (name == "bibitem") {
return new InsetBibitem(cmd.argument);
} else ...
Now, that's short enough. I think in this place using the mailer is
just an unneeded intermediate step.
Which leaves
> 1. Example usage of params2string, in LyXFunc::dispatch:
>
> case LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW_NEW_INSET: {
> string const name = func.getArg(0);
> string data = trim(func.argument.substr(name.size()));
>
> if (name == "foo") {
> ...
> } else if (name == "box") {
> // \c data == "Boxed" || "Frameless" etc
> InsetBoxParams p(data);
> data = InsetBoxMailer::params2string(p);
> }
> owner->getDialogs().show(name, data, 0);
> break;
> }
This is also a bit verbose. We basically transform a 'data' into 'data'.
So why not have a freestanding
void transformInsetBoxData(string &)
or
string transformInsetBoxData(string const &)
function doing the job of
InsetBoxParams p(data);
data = InsetBoxMailer::params2string(p);
?
This way the user does not have to know about InsetBoxParams and
InsetBoxMailer at all.
Andre'
