Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | I have always taken this order to apply to the LFUN itself rather, > | having never really thought too much about its <name>. > > It is actually vice versa... it is the <name> that is important. The > LFUN is un-important since that is hidden in the code and nothing a > user will ever see.
Understood. Now ;-) > | Would anybody be too upset > | if these LFUNs followed the object.event order more strictly? > > So now I have to relearn the names of these LFUNs... Only if I were to make the change. Would you like me to do so? If so, I'll post a modified lfuns.h to the list for comments before doing anything to the tree itself. -- Angus
