Jean Marc said: > The problem with script plugins is that people seem to expect that by > linking LyX to python everybody will be able to write python scritps > that can manipulate LyX objects natively. > > I may be missing most of current advancement in programming > tools, but I > do not see how that can happen. This is doable, but requires > a lot of work. > > And worse, people will expect that their scripts will > continue to work > with future versions. This means that we mostly stop code cleanups.
My idea was to issue commands to LyX via LFUNs, which are quite stable, even because they're associated with customizable shortcuts. I think this is a very uninvasive approach. For the language I prefer Python because _a lot_ of people uses it and I think this is fundamental if we want to hope in third party cooperation. Andre said: > Plugin systemis only (or rather, "at most") make sense if there's > a decent chance to have third parties creating plugins that are > not maintained/distributed with the main product. > For LyX, assuming a probability of zero for that case seems to be > a good first approximation. I agree, if we're talking about plugins in C++, but with Python we have a lot more changes. venom00
