I don't know if it is worth getting rid of the SheetObject structures all
together. Maybe just have it so that instead of registering a SheetObject
with a particular sheet, you just register it. Some other code could
construct the actual sheets from XML files. The current code in
objects/custom could be extended to take something like:
<sheetobj>Standard - Box</sheetobj>
As well as the <shape> tags. This way binary objects retain the use of
the user_data argument. We may want to use some other tag to identify a
sheet object rather than the object name. In objects/UML/class.c, the two
sheet objects for class and template class have the same object name, but
we want to distinguish them.
I would be interested to see what you come up with.
James.
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Cyrille Chepelov (home) wrote:
> Now, since I'll get rid of compile-time SheetObject, to have it described
> in XML, I'll have to loose the flexibility of giving a "void *" user_data.
> Would two arguments (int_user_data and string_user_data) do the trick ?
>
> -- Cyrille
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Grumpf.
>
>
>
