On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:05:28PM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote: > Maybe the set of operations that need to have this back-link > in the parameters is limited. However, such a structure *will* > stiffle change: The day that you discover that the foo-method > could really use a back-link, you discover that you have to > change this in many files, and then you resort to hacks instead.
Maybe we should talk about real LyX specific examples. In which case do I need the backlink, if possible under the assumption that we have a "central cursor" and user interaction happens at the cursor position? How many cases leaves that? > Also, by reversing the links from back-links to forward-links > that provide what exactly what the current child needs, you > run into a different problem: What if the child would like > to have access to a parent Paragraph, rather than the parent > Buffer? Why should it? > Or maybe we need access to the sibling, because it affects the layout? Than the common parent should take care of this. Do you hav something specific in mind? > When you do not have backlinks, you have to push the responsiblity > of providing the children with their needed information into the > parents. Yes. But I don't see anything wrong with it. > I see no good reason to impose a barrier in this data-structure > to make it one-way only street. Simpler architectures usually lead to less bugs and are easier to maintain. But who am I telling... Andre' -- André Pönitz .............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
