Armel Asselin: > as long as we would > state in doc that the transaction was started before the given action.
I don't think that exposing this is helpful. Client code does not currently know about there being separate startAction records and the implementation could replace them with a startAction flag on actions instead. From the client's point of view this would be invisible. > I need to send the notification from BeginUndoAction because first it is an > homogenous behaviour (all transaction starts get their notification), second > because Scintilla opens its own transactions (for example when calling > SetEol or such). Empty begin/end pairs are not retained. I thought you were after one SC_START_ACTION notification for each point that would be hit by a stream of undo operations. The notification should be on the first real modification to match undo behaviour. The term "action" is used in Scintilla to avoid the conceptual baggage that comes with "transaction". There is no abandon or commit and there is certainly no attempt at isolation. Neil _______________________________________________ Scintilla-interest mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scintilla-interest
