Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes <larsbj <at> ...> writes:
| > > | Can someone explain how this "embedding" works? LyX itself understands
| > > | LFUNs not Python so we'll still need to translate the python to a
| > > | series of LFUNs, no?
| > >
| > > Yes. So imho it is simpler to write a lib python/ruby/java/whatever
| > > that connects to the lyxsocket and runs lfun commands over that.
| > > (or perhaps something else than lfun. we haven't really put any effort
| > > into the lyxsocket to make it usable and powerful.)
| >
| > I read lots of stuff about application X has embedded scripting
| > language Y. What does that actually mean? What do these other apps
| > (say OOffice, KWord) have that we don't?
|
| I guess I should do my own research ;-)
| http://blog.emptycrate.com/Embedding_a_Scripting_Language
|
| We don't expose a C/C++ API to the outside world so there's nothing for a
| scripting language to get its hooks into. I guess we've made the decision not
to
| expose our API because we use LFUNs to do everything. LFUNs are our public
| interface.
|
| That feels like a good decision from a security POV. Why'd anyone want to
enable
| a scripting language to be able to execute lyx::support::unlink f.ex.?
|
| What do I miss?
>From my POV nothing.
--
Lgb
