Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >> Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>> I understand but I still don't like the scanning... :-) >> >> I don't like it either. But I don't see an alternative yet. > > We could just provide the feature if the label is not deeper than > one-level. If the user wants to deeply bury the label inside nested > insets, then he will miss the feature.
Not good. There is no logical reason why it should not work with a deeply nested caption. Even if you can't imagine reasons to nest captions, there might be some cases where this is useful. > In other word: > > if (parent().lyxCode() == InsetBase::CAPTION_CODE) > name = from_ascii(static_cast<InsetCaption const &>(parent()).type()); > > if (parent().lyxCode() == InsetBase::OPTARG_CODE > && parent().parent().lyxCode() == InsetBase::CAPTION_CODE) > name = from_ascii( > static_cast<InsetCaption const &>(parent().parent()).type()); > > The tree-like approach brings very clean and understandable code IMO. Except for copy/paste and undo/redo. This becomes ugly. > Abdel. > > PS: I have a patch mostly ready for that. Why? I fully agree with Andre that the tree<->object decision should be thoroughly thought out, because it has a lot of implications. This needs to be done before any coding, and we should not introduce a mixture of both approaches. And if anybody forgot: Now is not the time to make such decisions or even to discuss them. There are plenty of open bugs and regressions with 1.5.0 target in bugzilla. Georg
