[Ohrrpgce] thoughts about slice handles

[S'orlok Reaves]

Given my limited knowledge of how the Standard OHR actually works, this still seems to handle things well. My main question is: what takes up slots 32 to 99999? I don't like the idea of excessive wasted space, unless it's unavoidable. 

-->Seth


--- On Wed, 1/14/09, James Paige <Bob at HamsterRepublic.com> wrote:

> From: James Paige <Bob at HamsterRepublic.com>
> Subject: [Ohrrpgce] thoughts about slice handles
> To: ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 1:12 PM
> So I am thinking about slice handles.
> 
> As I have implemented them so far, slice handles are >0
> indexes into the 
> plotslices() array.
> 
> I was thinking about the conversion of floating plotstrings
> to string 
> slices. String handles are currently static numbers from
> 0-31
> 
> What if I make it so that slice handles start at some
> higher number like 
> say 100000. now, slice handle 100000 would actually be
> plotslices(0) and 
> 100001 would be plotslices(1)
> 
> So suppose you pass a static string handle of 31 to
> "append ascii"
> 
> That slice handle would be pulled from a static unfreeable
> list of 
> string slice handles created when the program starts.
> 
> But if you pass 100004 which happens to be the return
> result of "new 
> string slice" as the handle for "append
> ascii", then it will know to 
> pull that string slice handle from plotslices(4).
> 
> Even though plotslices() and staticstringslices() would be
> separate 
> tables, they would still be populated with pointers to
> slices in the 
> same slice tree, so old static strings would be fully
> interchangeable 
> with other slices for string operation purposes.
> 
> That would NOT give you the ability to use old static
> string handles for 
> things like anchor & alignment changes or
> tree-heirachy-relocation, but 
> that would be okay.
> 
> The same approach could be used later also for other
> handles that get 
> converted into slices (for example, maybe custom menu
> handles).
> 
> This seems like the best approach to enable slices while
> maintaining 
> backwards compatability with existing code, and with the
> right wrapper 
> functions it would not be to rough to code.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> ---
> James Paige
> _______________________________________________
> Ohrrpgce mailing list
> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org