Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me start you off:
> >
> > class GUI {
>
> This is my BaseFrontend class, do you prefer BaseGui instead?
Having slept on it, I think I prefer "GUI" rather than "Frontend". We used to
have BasePainter and Painter and people ended up disliking it intensely. (This
was in the days when core and frontend were intertwined; people ended up using
"Painter" when they should have used "BasePainter".) So, on reflection, I think
that the files in src/frontends should be "Base-less".
Now don't tell me that's a pain. It's 5 minutes to write the script ;-)
> I think this should be merged with the Clipboard class as Qt4 does
LOL! What an ugly interface! And you go from compile time checks to run time
ones. So, no, I think you should have two classes. (Your Qt implementation could
use a shared_ptr<QClipboard> if you want them to use the same QClipboard?)
Anyway, moving on...
> > * (Should the GUICursor be owned by the WorkArea then?)
>
> No, only connected to it by the owner when the kernel commands a
> switching to this WorkArea.
Hmmm. Each WorkArea "has-a" GUICursor seems like a natural fit. The frontend can
tell the workArea that it is now "active" and the WorkArea will change the
cursor appearance. I guess that there's the corresponding issue of telling the
old work area it's now "inactive"...
Things to mull over ;-)
> I would call that View for the implementation and BaseView for the
> virtual interface.
and I would call the virtual interface lyx::frontend::Window and the
implementation lyx::frontend::qt::Window ;-)
> Thanks for the help,
No worries. I'm doing some boring stuff here and you provide me with light
relief ;-)
Angus
