Re: LFUN_INSET_MODIFY

2012-04-18 Thread Richard Heck
LFUN_INSET_MODIFY that InsetBox receives is really intended for it? Given the way that the dispatch mechanism works for LFUN_INSET_MODIFY, it seems easy to imagine that some menu item is enabled for some inset that has another inset inside it, and that the wrong inset could end up getting the request

Re: LFUN_INSET_MODIFY

2012-04-18 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 15/04/2012 15:01, Richard Heck a écrit : In connection with bug #8124, a patch for which is attached below as 0001*, I am wondering whether it is worth also worth doing what is shown in 0002*. Do we know for sure that any request for LFUN_INSET_MODIFY that InsetBox receives is really

LFUN_INSET_MODIFY

2012-04-15 Thread Richard Heck
In connection with bug #8124, a patch for which is attached below as 0001*, I am wondering whether it is worth also worth doing what is shown in 0002*. Do we know for sure that any request for LFUN_INSET_MODIFY that InsetBox receives is really intended for it? Given the way that the dispatch

Re: replace LFUN_TABULAR_FEATURE with LFUN_INSET_MODIFY

2010-02-11 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Abdelrazak Younes writes: > Related to the table dialog cleanup I would like to replace > LFUN_TABULAR_FEATURE with LFUN_INSET_MODIFY because there is no > difference at all (AFAICS). It seems to make sense to me. (as you see I am very affirmative) JMarc

replace LFUN_TABULAR_FEATURE with LFUN_INSET_MODIFY

2010-02-11 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Related to the table dialog cleanup I would like to replace LFUN_TABULAR_FEATURE with LFUN_INSET_MODIFY because there is no difference at all (AFAICS). Any objection? Abdel.