Does your "protection style" implement the same functionality as the
built-in SCI_STYLESETCHANGEABLE - but using indicator bits instead of
style bits?
yes, equal
Have you made provision for the case of allowing caret positioning inside
of a range of "protected" chars? This would disallow unintended
coalescing of adjoining protected ranges.
i did not need that, so i would leave that to whom it interests
And yes, not worrying about the "special" (protected) versions of the
styles being overwritten by re-lexing would simplify part of my problem...
is this the main reason you are working on your changes?
yes, this is the main reason because in my app (ECMerge) lexing is
completely disconnected from the usage of indicators, so I want the lexer
and styling stuff to do its job independently from mine
A comment on using the indicator bits: my current use of the indicator
bits is to display "ephemeral" decorations which can all be erased on a
fairly regular basis... using them to save longer-lasting state will
unfortunately prevent the simple expedient of setting *all* indicator bits
to zero to do this erasing - but this happens whether they get used as
your primary protected state representation OR as "modifiers" of the
existing protected state mechanism... :(
i'm sure that you can define a set of indicators that are ephemeral and
another set for indicators that are not. You can clean the first without the
second.
Armel
_______________________________________________
Scintilla-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scintilla-interest
