Robert Roessler: > All right - without commenting on any large arachnids (or other > creepy-crawlies), further contemplation and testing suggest that this > *may* end up breaking too many of your invariants in Scintilla... so I > withdraw my request for consideration to relax the multiple-entry > restrictions at this time. :)
Good. I was thinking up a polite way to say that there should be a way for you to maintain a private version of the code that enforces these things. Have your own subclass of Document that handles modifications in a more liberal manner, have Editor call a factory function to produce Documents, and then have a way to set the type of Document that is produced. > BTW, I am not abandoning the "official caret-legal positions in > protected ranges" code using a new indicator style - this still has a > purpose, *if* I can achieve a satisfactory use of protected mode. This should be a quite rare situation. Most of the time there will be space between protected areas. And it uses an indicator bit. Document could maintain a list of explicitly valid caret landing zones. Neil _______________________________________________ Scintilla-interest mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scintilla-interest
