On 05.05.2011 19:26, venom00 wrote:
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.
I had a similar idea to record/replay such LFUNs series, especially for
reproducing bug it could be useful.
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
