On 01/06/2010 03:39 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck writes:
Not that it's a big deal, but it seems a bit of a waste to have both
lyx_func_map and lyx_info_map here, since lyx_info_map actually
contains the info that lyx_func_map does. The changes needed if we
eliminate lyx_func_map
rgheck writes:
> Not that it's a big deal, but it seems a bit of a waste to have both
> lyx_func_map and lyx_info_map here, since lyx_info_map actually
> contains the info that lyx_func_map does. The changes needed if we
> eliminate lyx_func_map seem pretty minor, too. Anyone know of a reason
> n
