On Sun, 2001-11-25 at 18:22, Derek Atkins wrote: > Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Yea, but you already need to have a list of cell locations; just keep > > > a pointer to the list and viola, you always have your references. :) > > > > Pointer to the list? You are thinking too low-level here. > > > > Something needs to have a list of cell locations, but that > > is implementation detail that the user-level model shouldn't > > know about. The user code should be written at as high a level > > as possible so it can be written in C or Scheme, preferably in > > a declarative style where that is possible. > > > > The goal here is to eventually specify much of the layout > > and model in scheme. > > Sure, you define the model and layout at a high-level, but > you still need to pass that down to the low-level. And it's > the low-level code that needs to make the callbacks knowing > the list of data types. So I don't see the problem, here.
High-level code needs to *implement* the callbacks and sometimes high-level code needs to refer to other cells besides the one it is implementing the specific callback for. That is the problem here. In other words, when the high-level needs to talk to the low-level, it should use high-level names, not low-level implementation details. Certainly, low-level code will not know what the names mean and will often simply traverse the cells without reference to their containts, like when saving a row and invoking 'save-me' callbacks. But I'm not talking about low-level code here. dave
msg01658/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
