If the object creation routine got a pointer to the ObjectType structure
corresponding to the object, and I could associate a piece of data with
the ObjectType structure, I would not need to use the current user_data
method (maybe this makes sense -- the ShapeInfo is associated with the
object type rather than the sheet object).
One other good thing about splitting off the sheet loading code is that we
can move the custom shape code back to being a dynamically loaded library,
rather than being statically linked (ther reason for statically linking it
was so other object libraries could load up custom shapes for their sheets
-- if sheet organisation is split off from the object libraries, this is
no longer needed).
If you interested in doing more work on dia, would you like to get a CVS
account? (the rules of proposing changes before making them would still
apply). If so, we could probably organise it.
James.
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Cyrille Chepelov (home) wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, James Henstridge wrote:
>
> > If you are planning on loading all the custom shapes you find before
> > constructing the sheets, is there any point to specifying them differently
> > inside the new sheet files? Also, do we want to allow objects to provide
> > their own pixmap icon, or shoud that be up to the sheet code.
>
> Sorry if I'm a bit lagging behind..
>
> I thought there was a point, because binary objects can have a user_data
> (which I had to restrict to int), while shapes can't (user_data is a
> ShapeInfo *) ; Of course, this can be easily lifted. As for the pixmap,
> currently the code uses the object's pixmap unless another icon is
> selected.
>
> -- Cyrille
>
> PS: congrats for the Cup
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Grumpf.
>
>
