On Thursday 25 August 2005 9:21 pm, Derek Atkins wrote: > Do you really need to keep track of the operations individually?
Not particularly, it just seemed handy to use an enum initially - I was thinking that a switch() statement was going to be needed later. I was planning to differentiate a MODIFY from a CREATE but I think that was just a hangover from tying the undo idea to events and dirty instances. > I would think a much better API would be: > QofOperation qof_book_start_operation(QofBook* book, const char > *op_name); void qof_book_end_operation(QofOperation oper); Makes sense. > At least that's my take on it all. What about the number of undo operations to hold relative to the number of changes per operation? It's not a problem for the CLI implementation, it's more for the future. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpRmWsVDW9rH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
