Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > i dont see what you want to merge on them. in another words i dont
>> > see anything what LFUN_FILE_NEW do what LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not able.
>>
>> Maybe "create file foo from template bar"? But if some
> > i dont see what you want to merge on them. in another words i dont
> > see anything what LFUN_FILE_NEW do what LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not able.
>
> Maybe "create file foo from template bar"? But if something like "1)
> new file from template bar 2) save as foo&
Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i dont see what you want to merge on them. in another words i dont
> see anything what LFUN_FILE_NEW do what LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not able.
Maybe "create file foo from template bar"? But if something like "1)
new file from temp
Pavel Sanda wrote:
i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before this
removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more usable than
LFUN_BUFFER_NEW wrt scripting so there is some reason for keeping this?
I do not know... I see it takes two argu
> > > > > > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so
> > > > > > before this
> > > > > > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more
> > > > > > usable than
> > >
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:19:04PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > > > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before
> > > > > this
> > > > > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more
> >
> > > > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before
> > > > this
> > > > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more
> > > > usable than
> > > > LFUN_BUFFER_NEW wrt scripting so
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 06:30:54PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before this
> > > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more usable
> > > than
> > > LFUN_BUFFER
> > i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before this
> > removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more usable
> > than
> > LFUN_BUFFER_NEW wrt scripting so there is some reason for keeping this?
>
> I do not k
Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i have overlooked "// for scripting purposes" in lfuns.h. so before this
> removal last question - do you see how LFUN_FILE_NEW could be more usable than
> LFUN_BUFFER_NEW wrt scripting so there is some reason for keeping this?
> > > I guess LFUN_FILE_NEW was supposed to work with the lyx server. I
> > > don't know why LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not used instead. Wait until an old
> > > dev gives an opinion ;-)
> >
> > I guess it does not matter as long as it is possible to pass the n
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I guess LFUN_FILE_NEW was supposed to work with the lyx server. I
> > don't know why LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not used instead. Wait until an old
> > dev gives an opinion ;-)
>
> I guess it does not matter as l
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess LFUN_FILE_NEW was supposed to work with the lyx server. I
> don't know why LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not used instead. Wait until an old
> dev gives an opinion ;-)
I guess it does not matter as long as it is possible to pass the
LFUN_FILE_NEW was supposed to work with the lyx server. I don't
know why LFUN_BUFFER_NEW is not used instead. Wait until an old dev
gives an opinion ;-)
Abdel.
hi,
i guess we have new candidate for removal. i dont see any usage
of this flun in code. moreover when i try to call it, it results
in painting bug.
BUFFER_NEW is currently used for new file action in menu.
should be there some difference between these two?
pavel
15 matches
Mail list logo
