[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
> *Alejandro Aguilar Sierra writes:
> | I don't know what is your idea but I think that we should not have
> | a function for each lyx command but just few of them. The most
> | important could be:
> |
> | (exec-lyx-command "<lyx command> [argument]")
> |
> | or a shorter name. Some of the necessary new functions are those
> | that currently can't be done without the GUI. For the rest, scheme
> | itself is powerful enough.
>
> I don't agree with you. We should export the lyxfuncs so that they
> seem to be builtin-scheme functions:
>
> (buffer-open "test.lyx")
Nobody (that I have seen anyway) has brought this up yet, but the Gimp
uses an embedded SIOD as their "Script-fu" engine. Very slick. They
prefix a lot (not all) of their functions w/ "gimp-" as in:
gimp-image-disable-undo
gimp-image-remove-layer
gimp-edit-fill
It's very slick and integrates well.
I kinda like the possibility of using Python as I don't know it (don't
even have it installed), but this would give me an excuse to learn it
:)
Chris
--
Chris D. Halverson Complete Internet Solutions
PGP mail accepted, finger for public key http://www.CompleteIS.com/~cdh/
