Re: Action diff - look and diss

John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let John people comment. It looks nice to me and I do not have many clever comments. A question though: we will be adding lots of objects with virtual methods (or lots of virtual methods to

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:20:44AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it compared to the requirements of insettabular/insettext. No-one (except Juergen I guess) really knows what they are though. More FUD. I think there will be a time

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:08:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It looks nice to me and I do not have many clever comments. A question though: we will be adding lots of objects with virtual methods (or lots of virtual methods to exisiting insets). What is the price we will have to pay

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:04:19PM +0100, John Levon wrote: How would you deal with tab inside an insettext inside a cell ? I don't think that tab to go to the beginning of the net paragraph is overly sensible. In fact, I discovered that key binding yesterday when trying to understand what you

Re: Action diff - look and diss

> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let John> people comment. It looks nice to me and I do not have many clever comments. A question though: we will be adding lots of objects with virtual methods (or lots of virtual

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:20:44AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it compared > > to the requirements of insettabular/insettext. No-one (except Juergen I > > guess) really knows what they are though. > > More FUD. I think there will

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:08:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It looks nice to me and I do not have many clever comments. A question > though: we will be adding lots of objects with virtual methods (or > lots of virtual methods to exisiting insets). What is the price we > will have to

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:04:19PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > How would you deal with inside an insettext inside a cell ? I don't think that to go to the beginning of the net paragraph is overly sensible. In fact, I discovered that key binding yesterday when trying to understand what you were

Action diff - look and diss

Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people comment. There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are why not like this instead not this bit sucks). big picture comments are probably most useful comments ? john ? texput.log ? o ? lf.diff ? a.diff ?

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:09:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote: Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people comment. There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are why not like this instead not this bit sucks). big picture comments are probably most

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: Well, some introduction in the concept might be in order. If not, you risk that stuff being rejected on gut feelings like 'I don't want map included in inset/inset.h' etc. Yes OK. Basically we remove this horrible switch fan-in

Re: Action diff - look and diss

John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people | comment. | There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are why | not like this instead not this bit sucks). big picture comments are | probably most useful | comments ?

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:28:41PM +0100, John Levon wrote: code dealing with passing lfuns backwards and forwards between child and parent insets. Note LFUN_TAB is an interesting example, because we need override to allow the containing tabular to override the text's default handler.

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: loose the Tabular - Table change I'll come back to this one later (it's unrelated and you're the only one who thinks that not having an English interface is OK...) action - Action ok (minor irrelevant stuff) Please

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: Eventually this will remove the total inclusion of commandtags.h, allow more fine-grained dynamic contexts, and more Fine. I just wonder whether this mechanism is not too complicated. Each type of inset could have a

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:52:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote: But this is what happens in the patch, So I did not read that from the patch. Fine then. except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. There would be one mapaction, callback _per class_. That's not expensive. Rather

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. There would be one mapaction, callback _per class_. That's not expensive. OK, so basically you're devolving one level of the two-level action-handler map into the

Re: Action diff - look and diss

Sure, but I'd love to see you handling the contained inset stuff :) doesn't mathed already have insets inside insets inside insets. It just calls the outer one that LyX can see Formula and hides all the rest from LyX entirely. Angus

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: doesn't mathed already have insets inside insets inside insets. It just calls the outer one that LyX can see Formula and hides all the rest from LyX entirely. Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | + result = (*h.second)(bv, h.first, arg); boost::bind boost::function ?? Ooh, interesting. I've been reading and it looks like we can use member functions like this : actions.add(LFUN_SHIFT_TAB,

Re: Action diff - look and diss

John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Does this sound workable ? How could I use bind instead ? You use bind to generate the function that you need. -- Lgb

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:19:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. There would be one mapaction, callback _per class_. That's not expensive. OK, so basically you're

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:38:11PM +0100, John Levon wrote: Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it compared to the requirements of insettabular/insettext. No-one (except Juergen I guess) really knows what they are though. More FUD. I think there will be a time when I

Action diff - look and diss

Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people comment. There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are "why not like this instead" not "this bit sucks"). "big picture" comments are probably most useful comments ? john ? texput.log ? o ? lf.diff ? a.diff

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:09:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people > comment. > > There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are "why > not like this instead" not "this bit sucks"). "big picture" comments are >

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > Well, some introduction in the concept might be in order. If not, you risk > that stuff being rejected on gut feelings like 'I don't want included > in inset/inset.h' etc. Yes OK. Basically we remove this horrible switch fan-in

Re: Action diff - look and diss

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Rather than justify any of this, I'll just show it and let people | comment. > | There's lots of things I don't really like (helpful comments are "why | not like this instead" not "this bit sucks"). "big picture" comments are | probably most useful > |

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:28:41PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > code dealing with passing lfuns backwards and forwards between child and > parent insets. > > Note LFUN_TAB is an interesting example, because we need override to > allow the containing tabular to override the text's default handler.

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > loose the Tabular -> Table change I'll come back to this one later (it's unrelated and you're the only one who thinks that not having an English interface is OK...) > action -> Action ok (minor irrelevant stuff) > Please

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Eventually this will remove the total inclusion of commandtags.h, allow > > more fine-grained dynamic contexts, and more > > Fine. I just wonder whether this mechanism is not too complicated. > > Each type of inset could have a

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:52:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > But this is what happens in the patch, So I did not read that from the patch. Fine then. > except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. There would be one map _per class_. That's not expensive. >

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. > > There would be one map _per class_. That's not > expensive. OK, so basically you're devolving one level of the two-level action->handler map

Re: Action diff - look and diss

> Sure, but I'd love to see you handling the contained inset stuff :) doesn't mathed already have insets inside insets inside insets. It just calls the outer one that LyX can see Formula and hides all the rest from LyX entirely. Angus

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > doesn't mathed already have insets inside insets inside insets. It just calls > the outer one that LyX can see Formula and hides all the rest from LyX > entirely. Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | + result = (*h.second)(bv, h.first, arg); > > boost::bind > boost::function > ?? Ooh, interesting. I've been reading and it looks like we can use member functions like this : actions.add(LFUN_SHIFT_TAB,

Re: Action diff - look and diss

John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Does this sound workable ? How could I use bind instead ? You use bind to generate the function that you need. -- Lgb

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:19:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > except we don't replicate the code for a map in each inset. > > > > There would be one map _per class_. That's not > > expensive. > > OK, so

Re: Action diff - look and diss

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:38:11PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > Sure, but I would bet that mathed has some things easier on it compared > to the requirements of insettabular/insettext. No-one (except Juergen I > guess) really knows what they are though. More FUD. I think there will be a time when