On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:56:21AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > I think I'll add another constructor that does not need the 0 later...
>
> Please do.
Done.
But now I am off to insettext *sigh*
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 08:55:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > val));
> > + lv_.dispatch(FuncRequest(0, LFUN_TABULAR_INSERT, val));
> >
> > this 0 thing just seems ugly and wrong.
>
> I wanted to make sure I catched all occurence.
>
> I think I'll add another constructor that
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 08:06:21PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Hmm, why is this a step forward ?
>
> - lv_.getLyXFunc()->dispatch(FuncRequest(LFUN_TABULAR_INSERT,
> val));
> + lv_.dispatch(FuncRequest(0, LFUN_TABULAR_INSERT, val));
>
> this 0 thing just seems ugly and wrong.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 08:38:06PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> This basically moves the 'BufferView * bv' argument which the
> "localDispatch" methods use into the second argument (the FuncRequest).
- /// view of a buffer. FuncRequestually there will be several.
+ /// view of a buf
This basically moves the 'BufferView * bv' argument which the
"localDispatch" methods use into the second argument (the FuncRequest).
Then there is a LyXView::dispatch which dispatches to "its own bufferview"
(saves a dozen or so #include "lyxfunc" all over the place btw)
And finally, it "local
