Martin Vermeer wrote: > I mean: (1) define a branch, (2) insert a branch inset of that branch, > and (3) delete the branch definition again.
OK, now I understand. IMHO (3) should not be possible if there are still branch insets, or it should at least ask for confirmation. > Hmmm, one can call this a problem. On the other hand, one could also > *want* to use the child document on its own. It isn't "hard-wired" as a > child document, is it? I mean, it's just a role it is cast into by the > master doc. See my reply to Jean-Marc. > We have to somehow handle the situation where a branch inset is in a > document for which the branch is not defined. In CharStyle you created a > method setUndefined, which prefixed the button text with "Undef:" Did I? I don't remember :-) (I thought the undefined stuff was already there) > Actually I think it is OK to have branch insets in a document belonging > to undefined branches, as long as the user is aware of it. The inset > should have a reasonable colour (red for warning?) and perhaps also an > "Undef:" prefix in the button. > > Does this sound like a plan? Yes. And the inset should be set to the undefined state immediately after a branch is deleted and after a copy from a different document. Is that difficult to implement? Georg
