Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:40:47AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > But it is hard to find the right steps to be able to do it with baby > steps. I know. There was this RowSt thing in mathed, too. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Lars> Paragraphs in containers, rows in containers etc. > | Lars> But it is hard to find the right steps to be able to do it with | Lars> baby steps. > | Why not create a pseudo stl list interface for paragraphs (keep the | next/previous internally, but add proper iterators) and then remove | progressively all uses of previous()/next(). When they have all been | removed, you can actually use the container you want for the | paragraphs. > | Easy, isn't it? ;) I have been down this road as well..., it makes things easier, but it is not exacly baby steps... (I have a checked out tree with a lot of this done... I'll try to begin introducing stuff from it.) -- Lgb
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lars> Paragraphs in containers, rows in containers etc. Lars> But it is hard to find the right steps to be able to do it with Lars> baby steps. Why not create a pseudo stl list interface for paragraphs (keep the next/previous internally, but add proper iterators) and then remove progressively all uses of previous()/next(). When they have all been removed, you can actually use the container you want for the paragraphs. Easy, isn't it? ;) JMarc
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: >> A Row is a row. It shouldn't care or know about its next() and previous(). >> >> A list is a collection of Rows. >> >> That's what the STL is /for/. > | Indeed^3. And this is part of the huge code clean up that I really, really want done. Paragraphs in containers, rows in containers etc. But it is hard to find the right steps to be able to do it with baby steps. -- Lgb
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > A Row is a row. It shouldn't care or know about its next() and previous(). > > A list is a collection of Rows. > > That's what the STL is /for/. Indeed^3. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:32:26PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote: > >I tried that once and failed as there is not alwasy a clear meaning of a > >Row * in the code. It could be a single row or a set of rows starting with > >this row. This makes things really messy. > > Would you care to explain this better? A Row * is always 1 row, as much > as I know of that code. The rows are used _only_ in LyXText and denotes > the whole set of rows of the entire document (visible rows on screen). Maybe I am mistaken and it was Paragraph * that acted that way. It has been a while since I tried that. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
Angus Leeming wrote: > A Row is a row. It shouldn't care or know about its next() and previous(). > > A list is a collection of Rows. Ok explanation understood and accepted! Jug -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitterstrich 151/A Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253 I-39050 SteineggWeb: http://www.lyx.org/~jug -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Friday 12 July 2002 12:32 pm, Juergen Vigna wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > I tried that once and failed as there is not alwasy a clear meaning of a > > Row * in the code. It could be a single row or a set of rows starting > > with this row. This makes things really messy. > > Would you care to explain this better? A Row * is always 1 row, as much > as I know of that code. The rows are used _only_ in LyXText and denotes > the whole set of rows of the entire document (visible rows on screen). > I don't see what's messy with it? A Row is a row. It shouldn't care or know about its next() and previous(). A list is a collection of Rows. That's what the STL is /for/. Angus
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
Andre Poenitz wrote: > I tried that once and failed as there is not alwasy a clear meaning of a > Row * in the code. It could be a single row or a set of rows starting with > this row. This makes things really messy. Would you care to explain this better? A Row * is always 1 row, as much as I know of that code. The rows are used _only_ in LyXText and denotes the whole set of rows of the entire document (visible rows on screen). I don't see what's messy with it? Jug -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitterstrich 151/A Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253 I-39050 SteineggWeb: http://www.lyx.org/~jug -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:56:25AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Glad to see that I wasn't being ridiculously stupid. Someone should refactor > Row so that list is a natural construct. Till then I thought I should > use it as it was designed to be used ;-) I tried that once and failed as there is not alwasy a clear meaning of a Row * in the code. It could be a single row or a set of rows starting with this row. This makes things really messy. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Friday 12 July 2002 11:14 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> for (Row const * row = visible.first; true; row = row->next()) {
>// do what you want to do...
>if (row != visible.second)
> break;
> }
Glad to see that I wasn't being ridiculously stupid. Someone should refactor
Row so that list is a natural construct. Till then I thought I should
use it as it was designed to be used ;-)
> saves one "global" variable but uses 'break' which some people frown upon
> (mostly for reasons I don't accept...)
>
> Andre'
Re: A more elegant way of defining a loop?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:43:46AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Another coding question. Can I write this loop another, more elegant way?
> Angus
>
> // visible contains pointers to the first and last rows visible in
> // the BufferView
> std::pair visible = ...
>
> bool running = true;
> for (Row const * row = visible.first; running; row = row->next()) {
> do what you want to do...
>
> running = row != visible.second;
> }
for (Row const * row = visible.first; row != visible.second; row = row->next()) {
do what you want to do...
}
is slightly different (might have 0 loops) but depending on what you do it
could be the same. If not I'd write that as
for (Row const * row = visible.first; true; row = row->next()) {
// do what you want to do...
if (row != visible.second)
break;
}
saves one "global" variable but uses 'break' which some people frown upon
(mostly for reasons I don't accept...)
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
A more elegant way of defining a loop?
Another coding question. Can I write this loop another, more elegant way?
Angus
// visible contains pointers to the first and last rows visible in
// the BufferView
std::pair visible = ...
bool running = true;
for (Row const * row = visible.first; running; row = row->next()) {
do what you want to do...
running = row != visible.second;
}
