J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Victor Mote wrote:
> > Since this is
> > information that is useful only during layout, perhaps this
> change was made
> > to make the Area Tree more lean (i.e. use less memory)?
>
> IIRC it was made to allow areas GC'd early. In the maintenance branch,
> if something keeps
Victor Mote wrote:
Since this is
information that is useful only during layout, perhaps this change was made
to make the Area Tree more lean (i.e. use less memory)?
IIRC it was made to allow areas GC'd early. In the maintenance branch,
if something keeps a reference to an area, like tables did, the
Please disregard my previous message under this thread. After working on
this a bit more, I think I just need to do more homework here.
Victor Mote
I think Joerg already said this, but it appears that the main challenge to
completing a port of the maintenance branch layout to the trunk will be a
reconciliation of the differences between the two area trees. Since we don't
have a fully-functional layout system using either of the two models, I h
