On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:47:37AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> This sounds great... to make it perfectly clear, you propose to replace
> the loop at
>
> 204 for (; depth(); pop()) {
> ...
> 214 disp_.update(true);
> 215 disp_.dispatched(true);
> 216 inset().dispatch(*this, cmd);
> 217 if (disp_.dispatched())
> 218 break;
> 219 }
>
> by a similar one testing for
>
> while(!lfun_queue.empty()) {
> ...
> inset().dispatch(*this, cmd);
> lfun_queue.pop_back();
> }
We'd probably need two nested loops
while (!lfun_queue.empty()) {
cmd = lfun_queue.pop_front();
LCursor tmp = *this;
for (; tmp.depth(); tmp.pop()) {
if (inset().dispatch(tmp, cmd)) {
*this = tmp;
break;
}
}
}
or similar.
> case LFUN_<something>:
> <do something>;
> cmd = FuncRequest(LFUN_FINISHED_<direction>);
> cur.undispatched();
> break;
> by
> case LFUN_<something>:
> <do something>;
> cur.lfun_queue.push_back(LFUN_<something>));
> break;
> ?
>
> The current solution is indeed a bit of a kludge, as it allows only
> queing of a single LFUN to the inset level above.
>
> Perhaps not for 1.4.0 though as we're in freeze.
Indeed. Right now we should just add the missing 'cur.undispatched()'
calls.
Andre'
