>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> That being said, it might indeed make sense to have a single
Angus> insert-inset "name" lfun although at present the code for these
Angus> different lfuns is very different.
That's what I mean. As long as only one of the lfuns makes sense to
each inset, there is no reason to differentiate the cases from an
user's point of view. The fact that the underlying code is different
is not a problem IMO.
Angus> Yes, I think that I could do this although I have come to the
Angus> conclusion that signals just obfuscated the Dialogs code. I
Angus> suspect that this is also true of the Menubar code and believe
Angus> that we should use something like the Timout code to proceed.
I would be interested by any idea.
Angus> Anyway, this is all for the future. The current and real
Angus> problem is that the stuff that creates the psuedo action from
Angus> "dialog-show-new-inset graphics" is returneing it as
Angus> "dialog-show-next-inset graphics" which is absolutely wrong :-(
A hint. Stare very intensely at the two following lines from
LyXAction.C. Do you see something weird?
{ LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW_NEW_INSET, "dialog-show-new-inset",
N_("Show the inset's dialog"), Noop },
{ LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW_NEW_INSET, "dialog-show-next-inset",
N_("Show the inset's dialog"), Noop },
JMarc
