On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:19:04PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > > > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before > > > > > this > > > > > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more > > > > > usable than > > > > > LFUN_BUFFER_NEW wrt scripting so there is some reason for keeping > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > I do not know... I see it takes two arguments, but I am not sure what > > > > they are. > > > > > > filename and templatefile. > > > > > > another option could be that instead of direct removal, we can put it > > > into some #if 0 and let the removal for 1.7 unless some user start > > > screem for the particular lfun... > > > > Could they be merged? > > i dont see what you want to merge on them. in another words i dont see > anything > what LFUN_FILE_NEW do what LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not able.
This counts as 'merged' I suppose ;-) Andre'
