Armel Asselin wrote:
I was liking this "separation from lexing" approach until I realized
that Undo/Redo exposes the very same problem[s]: as *all* styling info
(style *and* indicator bits) is lost and must be reconstructed in this
case, the "pure-indicator" approach to protected fields is
significantly weakened (it would appear).
the ALL does not stand any more: the USER class of indicators is NEVER
touched. Just you can touch it.
An additional point vis-a-vis the indicator approach: with the
scarcity of the indicator bits resource (and the way they are used),
it would seem quite desirable to have an indicator-based protected
fields mechanism "overload" the indicator type value, e.g., low bits
as they are now, high bits used to specify protection. Done properly,
this would not need to break existing Scintilla clients - apps that do
not know about the high bits will not set them or look for them.
you can have now between 24 and 31 indicator bits (32-[style bits])
While my comments apply to the existing codebase (with or without
minor changes), your comments obviously apply to your new work - it
sounds nice, but definitely larger changes than I was looking at. :)
Robert Roessler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rftp.com
_______________________________________________
Scintilla-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scintilla-interest
