Subject: Re: clarifications on changing how fields work
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 01:32:24 CST
At 09:32 PM 3/12/00 -0600, Justin Bradford wrote:
>I am personally of the opinion that current word processors have tried to
>cram way too much functionality into fields. I think if's should be
>handled by scripts, but I do see some beneift in a simple alternative like
>this (Rather than requiring scripting functionality for a simple if).
>
>So, I guess I'll take the position that a simple if field is ok, but let's
>try to keep scripting to scripting languages, rather than further
>brutalize the field concept. Of course, that's just my opinion; many other
>must be convinced, too.
Bingo. It sounds like we've reached consensus here, no?
>Ok, this will work. Fields become a new kind of strux, effectively. Not a
>"real" object, just has properties and groups other runs (like a
>paragraph or section). I had a similar approach in mind, but was concerned
>by the scale of changes (ie. I didn't want to write all of that code) and
>convinced myself that a simpler solution would work.
>
>For the sake of consistency, we should probably consider changing this
>field to a pf_Frag_Strux (as that's what it is now).
I haven't been down in the Piece Table code as recently as either of you,
but this sounds like a good idea to me too.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 01:26:51 CST