rgheck <rgh...@bobjweil.com> writes: > Not that it's a big deal, but it seems a bit of a waste to have both > lyx_func_map and lyx_info_map here, since lyx_info_map actually > contains the info that lyx_func_map does. The changes needed if we > eliminate lyx_func_map seem pretty minor, too. Anyone know of a reason > not to do this?
It seems that you are right about this. Unless there is some speed argument, but I'd be surprised. Concerning speed, why not use a vector instead of a map<FunCode, FuncInfo>? JMarc
