In message <001301c72d0d$88762f60$9601a8c0@PC01>, John Grogan <johngrogan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Two possible thoughts:
(a) could DDL be changed to allow in-line definitions e.g.
{embed {line <..data..>}}
That works on the Windows version. It fits in with the syntax and it made life a lot easier when handling embedded graphics in RTF files.
(b) I tried putting the line definition in the DDL file for the master document but it wasn't recognised when I tried to reference it from the dropped-inDDL. Would it be possible to allow this?
That's really going back to my idea about allowing commands in the DDL to move around - Another approach would be some way of finding the object id of a given object.
As a further line of thought - I think it relates to your last comment - wouldit be possible to permit multiple "embed" references to a single object?
My last comment was a way of saying make this frame pink.I guess embed acts like a cut command destroying the original non-embedded object.
There's a parallel with pictures, if a picture is used in more than one place, then more than one instance of it is made. You'll see this sort of thing in the DDL.
PICTURE101=PICTURE100This doesn't actually copy all the data, it just bumps up a count of the number of times the object is used. So that only when all instances have been finished with does the thing get deleted.
I'm not sure if the counting etc. that goes on with pictures is supported for all object types.
-- David Pilling email: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://www.davidpilling.net post: David Pilling P.O. Box 22 Thornton Cleveleys Blackpool. FY5 1LR UK fax: +44(0)870-0520-941
