Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > But this means that the LFUNS are not usable anymore from > minibuffer/bindings... I know it was not really possible before, but > by using an explicit type, we are really closing this door now.
Initially I liked the any stuff, but if that means that lfuns are not scriptable anymore then I think we should not do it. > I am less and less sure that using LFUNs to communicate between the > kernel and the controllers was a good idea. Why not just use plain old > C++ methods instead? Or maybe signals? One advantage of using the lfuns is that we can reuse the various getStatus() methods. > Either these LFUNs are like the others and having an ascii > representation of the arguments is a must for scripting, or they are > not like the others and they should be pure C++. Agreed. Georg
