On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:39:47AM +0100, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
>
> > Ok.. so at the moment there is no textual description at all about what
> > each lfun does or is supposed to do? That is... right now we only know
> > (implicitly through the source) what each lfun actually does?
>
> That was really *always* the situation. The lfuns have had little
> consistent design applied to them historically, and the descriptions
> were mostly close to useless, especially as they weren't
> context-dependent, unlike the lfuns.
Ok, I see...
Just to be sure I understand you... you say that the descriptions were
almost useless since they weren't context-dependent... could you give an
example of such an lfun?
(I'm surprised that even a "high-level" description would be wrong, since
then the lfun's behaviour need to be *very* context-dependent)
> Angus has cleaned up a lot of the lfun stuff but they are still a mess;
> that is, nowhere near to a serious scripting interface.
I think I've noticed his work... I liked his(?) recent patch for reducing
the n:o lfuns.
Speaking of that, I used my script to see how the lfuns have changed
between the recent releases. The lfuns for Lyx 1.3.1 - 1.3.3 are the
same, but the n:o lfuns has dropped from 241 to 238 in the latest CVS.
However, the n:o lfuns in
1.3.3 is... 241
HEAD is... 238
both 1.3.3 and HEAD is... 206
so at least alot must be have been going on "inside".
Would it make sense to try and assemble descriptions for the lfuns as they
are in HEAD (possibly context-dependent), in order to get a bit closer to
a serious scripting interface?
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
