On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:30, Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi Vincent
Etc. My question: why is a special treatment needed when a table is found as a descendent of a marker? My understanding is that if a whole table is defined in a marker, then it doesn’t depend on the enclosing table in which the marker is retrieved. Or have I completely missed something?
Small detail: property parsing is only done for descendants of markers if and when the marker is retrieved. This test was added to make sure that implicit column-numbers are only computed once for table-cells and -columns that are marker-descendants. (IIRC, I did so in response to a bug-report). If the marker in which the table appears is never retrieved, then we don't even bother to pass through the parser, and simply store the explicitly specified properties as name/value pairs.
Cheers Andreas
