> > You mean allowing the insertion of this inset from command buffer? > > Otherwise, I do not see why this is needed. > > Yes, also for the benefit of lyxserver. We should allow arguments to > lfuns as often as possible.
You are right, but when I type info-insert in command buffer, nothing happens. :-) > > When I write in lib/doc/Shortcuts.lyx "This file documents the > > currently used shortcuts defined in bind file BLAH, .... > > Hmm, not sure this is _really_ useful. I am not sure either. I guess Jose can make a decision for us. > Instead of having predetermined categories, the first argument of > InsetInfo could be an lfun. Then InsetInfo would just invoke this lfun > to get the needed information. This means that the information will > also be available for other uses (without additional cost). But we then need to define more LFUNs, such as LFUN_SHORTCUT_NAME? > Not really. When telling in the UserGuide that File>Open is Ctrl+O, > one does not want to enumerate all possible uses. Actually you could > implement both "shortcut" and "shortcuts" for these two uses. Maybe an overkill because most LFUN has only one shortcuts... > > As for printbindings, the original output [][] looks bad in a > > button. Because it is used only in > > LyXFunc.cpp::LyXFunc::sendDispatchMessage, so I think it is OK to > > change it. > > Hmm. Another Jose's headache. > I'd rather keep the file in the hands of documenters and let them > decide what to do. The file should part of the effort of building a > complete reference of function. We already have enough flux in the > documentation currently. I am not sure. This file serves as a reference for shortcuts, and would better not be mixed with other references. Cheers, BO
