On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 10:46:57AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >It surely has. In the main inset go down to cell slice[0].cell, walk > >down to paragraph slice[0].pit, go to pos slice[0].pos, Take the inset > >there. Go to its cell slice[1].cell, paragraph slice[1].pit, position > >slice[1].pos. And so on. Ordinary text insets have a single cell only, > >tables and a lot of math insets may have more than one. > > Am I the only one who think this is not simple?
Don't know. What would be the alternative? > >Not really. We had the parent way for about ten years, yet no way to > >iterate over the document. So implementing it was obviously not trivial > >as having no way to iterate over a document hurt a lot... > > Come on, look at DocIterator::forwardPos() and backwardPos(), I am > pretty sure this could be simplified by having access to the tree > information. Could be. It is pretty well encapsulated, though, so I wonder why saving a dozen lines of some implementation detail makes so much of a difference in your eyes. > >I am not saying the parent approach is wrong. However, it has a lot of > >implications. A whole lot. > > As I said, I am not advocating a complete switch to the parent approach. Anythiung inbetween doesn't make much sense maintanance-wise. Andre'
