Subject: Re: Summary (was Re: asserts and pagebreaks)
From: Mike Nordell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 13:01:12 CDT
Jesper Skov wrote:
> Mike> A run
> Mike> should IMO *only* know about itself, its position on the
> Mike> fp_Line, its DocPos wrt the block and a few other things. It
> Mike> should know nothing about other runs (in a perfect world).
> But as far as I can tell, you cannot achieve the desired semantics
> (in the current design anyway) without the Runs being able to tell
> either that you can expect to get a hit next time, or that you are
> past what you are looking for.
Shouldn't that be the job of the run-manager?
What's saying that the current design is correct? I'm not saying it's
incorrect, I don't know it enough to be the judge of that, but there
might be a slim chance that it is.
I still think that the just_after belongs in the layout class, not the
run class. Yes it would require a rewrite of some stuff, a shift of
paradigm regarding handling of the runs, and it can possibly be wasted,
maybe even break badly, but the runs position relative another run isn't
the business of a run IMHO. Maybe even more since runs participate in
relationships with both layout a line.
I might be wrong, but until I'm convinced that the current way is the
best of the possible ways to do it it's still my opinion.
Maybe it's because the runs are so data centric that we tend to think of
them in data centric terms, when we perhaps should think of their
Then again, I might be way off again...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri May 26 2000 - 11:58:38 CDT