José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 18:25:11 Bo Peng wrote:
Of course I also respect your chaos judgment.
Come on this does not help any discussion. :-(
Actually, that was meant seriously and nicely. I'd said that there'd be
too much chaos if we did something, and Bo wa
Bo Peng wrote:
Please see my other message. What Andre envisages is rolling
InsetCommandParams into the insets. That could be done, of course, but there
are at least some reasons not to do it. The reasons not to do it are the
same as the reasons to have InsetGraphicsParams be separate from
Inset
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 18:25:11 Bo Peng wrote:
> Of course I also respect your chaos judgment.
Come on this does not help any discussion. :-(
> Cheers,
> Bo
--
José Abílio
> Please see my other message. What Andre envisages is rolling
> InsetCommandParams into the insets. That could be done, of course, but there
> are at least some reasons not to do it. The reasons not to do it are the
> same as the reasons to have InsetGraphicsParams be separate from
> InsetGraphic
Bo Peng wrote:
I am fairly sure that per-inset code using a few common helper function
would end up rather in the 20-30 lines range, and be more flexible in
the end as we do not have to stick to yet another framework.
I would happy to see this as well. There will be no conversion betwee
