Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are you just trying to avoid the discussion?
No, I just believe that the model of updating after the lfun execution is a robust one. > If not and you genuinely want to discuss then I'd say yes, > basically. This example shows that we do a lot of things in LyX at > the wrong place and at the wrong time. The fundamental problem is > not this little problem, it lies in the design. The external event > could well have been an internal event but it's rare enough to not > notice it. If LyX continues to use lfuns to do its work (but I know people want to bypass that for the sake of... of something), I do not see what kind of internal event could go through. Actually, this is why I insist we should go through lyx::dispatch as much as possible. if you do not want to do it because it gives you shivers in the spin, we can let everybody be free, but I fear the 38 calls to updateLabels discussed recently will look like a benign problem wrt the signals explosion that will result from every piece of code being responsible of knowing how its actions may change the availability/status of some other lfuns. JMarc
