On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:12:02PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >> Andre Poenitz wrote: > >> > >> > I don't really know. I am still a bit confused about coordinates... > >> > >> Hum... it would be time to take a decision then? ;-) Are inset > >> coordinates relative to the parent or absolute? > > > > I don't even have a gut feeling here... > > > > Another option would be to have absolute _screen_ coordinates for insets. > > Uhmm... indeed I think that this is what's in the code (so my patch is > wrong). But there's something rotten about coordinates.
Indeed. But it has been like that all the time. Corrections. Corrections of correction... > For instance, in any hit in LyXTexT::checkInsetHit, y is incremented > by top_y... so clearly checkInsetHit cannot be called in a loop like > it is. Good point. Do you know whether we need to modify the value at all? > > It's not bad if we miss an action because the cursor is too far off: > > It won't be visible anyway. > > No, I mean that the cursor recenters around completely wrong > coordinates sometimes. (i.e., for instance click in the main text, > scroll with the scrollbar, click somewhere inside an inset, and then > everything is wrong) I can see it. > I think that the old code used to put the top > cursor behind the top locked inset or something. Does not sound like a nice solution... Should we try to use 'absolute screen coordinates' all over the place? There would be a 'top_y' as we have now (and maybe top_x), but everything else is relative to this (top_x, top_y) point. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
