Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can | you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? | How can you _ever_ say that? Can a single name tell? or do we need a small essay and examples on behaviour to tell? -- Lgb
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can | you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? | How can you _ever_ say that? Can a single name tell? or do we need a small essay and examples on behaviour to tell? Wow... this was a while back... Are you going through old mail? I think my question is rethorical/ironical (duh... indicates this ;-) Anway, since I'm unclear on what you mean... (or I meant), I went back and read my first post in this thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/32459 Here's a snippet about enumerated LFUN labels v.s. command strings: ... looking at the enum names and the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to define(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN? where the define(*) refers to the following footnote: (*) I mean define in the sense that I think the name, either of the enum, or of the command string should be clearly connected to the intended action of the LFUN. So... what I originally meant by define does not require an essay... and I was probably thinking of documenting the list of LFUNs or something... Mabye specifies is the word I should have used, i.e. something that specifies how the lfun ought to behave. Going back to your question of _ever_ say that - in a real world you can't of course. With without software bugs I meant in a perfect world, with a perfect implementation and no bugs then - maybe - the code could define intended behaviour ;-) Note: We could always do a change of opinion and simply say that the indented behaviour is what the code does, i.e. That's not a bug, it's a feature! ;-) Ok... I'm completely rambling now so I'd better stop. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody... (I just realized it's Friday...) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Wow... this was a while back... Are you going through old mail? Yes I have a lag of some 3-400 hundred lyx mails. been busy. | Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody... | (I just realized it's Friday...) That too -- Lgb
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can | you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? | How can you _ever_ say that? Can a single name tell? or do we need a small essay and examples on behaviour to tell? -- Lgb
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can
> | you say that the code defines the intended behaviour?
> |
>
> How can you _ever_ say that? Can a single name tell? or do we need a
> small essay and examples on behaviour to tell?
Wow... this was a while back... Are you going through old mail?
I think my question is rethorical/ironical ("duh..." indicates this ;-)
Anway, since I'm unclear on what you mean... (or I meant), I went back
and read my first post in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/32459
Here's a snippet about enumerated LFUN labels v.s. command strings:
... looking at the enum names and the strings for the user
commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to "define"(*) the
intended behaviour of the LFUN?
where the "define"(*) refers to the following footnote:
(*) I mean "define" in the sense that I think the name, either of
the enum, or of the command string should be clearly connected to
the intended action of the LFUN.
So... what I originally meant by "define" does not require an essay... and
I was probably thinking of documenting the list of LFUNs or something...
Mabye "specifies" is the word I should have used, i.e. something that
specifies how the lfun ought to behave.
Going back to your question of "_ever_ say that" - in a real world you
can't of course. With "without software bugs" I meant in a perfect
world, with a perfect implementation and no bugs then - maybe - the
code could define intended behaviour ;-)
Note: We could always do a change of opinion and simply say that the
indented behaviour is what the code does, i.e.
"That's not a bug, it's a feature!" ;-)
Ok... I'm completely rambling now so I'd better stop.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody...
(I just realized it's Friday...)
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Wow... this was a while back... Are you going through old mail? Yes I have a lag of some 3-400 hundred lyx mails. been busy. | Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody... | (I just realized it's Friday...) That too -- Lgb
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:03:23PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: I know that an LFUN is a lyx-function and a little more: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Devel/LFUNs From lfuns.h I get: * These are all the lyx functions, the main mechanism * through which the frontends communicate with the core. * * They are managed in LyXAction.C and handled in various * ::dispatch() functions, starting with LyXFunc.C:dispatch() So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to define(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN? A function such as LFUN_QUIT / lyx-quit is straight forward, it's a command to the core to do quit, and both names indicate this. However, LFUN_HOME / line-begin is less clear to me. Historical baggage. I personally wouldn't mind some consiolitation in this area. As the plaintext versions seem to be in somewhat better shape than the enums, maybe the former should be used. Andre'
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:03:23PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > I know that an LFUN is a lyx-function and a little more: > > http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Devel/LFUNs > > >From lfuns.h I get: > * These are all the lyx functions, the main mechanism > * through which the frontends communicate with the core. > * > * They are managed in LyXAction.C and handled in various > * ::dispatch() functions, starting with LyXFunc.C:dispatch() > > So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and the > strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to > "define"(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN? > > A function such as LFUN_QUIT / "lyx-quit" is straight forward, it's a > command to the core to do quit, and both names indicate this. > > However, LFUN_HOME / "line-begin" is less clear to me. Historical baggage. I personally wouldn't mind some consiolitation in this area. As the plaintext versions seem to be in somewhat better shape than the enums, maybe the former should be used. Andre'
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: Christian Ridderström wrote: So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to define(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN? That's clear. LyX acts on LFUN_QUIT. lyx-quit is simply translated to LFUN_QUIT so that the core knows what to do with it. Anyway, what really _defines_ LFUN_QUIT is the block of code that is acted on in the switch: duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström wrote: duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? If you're going to be rude, I'll keep my comments to myself in future. -- Angus
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: Christian Ridderström wrote: duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? If you're going to be rude, I'll keep my comments to myself in future. I apologize, I didn't mean to be rude and offend you. Please read my initial post again, I *really* would like to know. regards /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: > Christian Ridderström wrote: > > So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and > > the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is > > supposed to "define"(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN? > > That's clear. LyX acts on LFUN_QUIT. "lyx-quit" is simply translated > to LFUN_QUIT so that the core knows what to do with it. > > Anyway, what really _defines_ LFUN_QUIT is the block of code that is > acted on in the switch: duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström wrote: > duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how > can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? > If you're going to be rude, I'll keep my comments to myself in future. -- Angus
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Angus Leeming wrote: > Christian Ridderström wrote: > > duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how > > can you say that the code defines the intended behaviour? > > > > If you're going to be rude, I'll keep my comments to myself in future. I apologize, I didn't mean to be rude and offend you. Please read my initial post again, I *really* would like to know. regards /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström wrote:
So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and
the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is
supposed to define(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN?
That's clear. LyX acts on LFUN_QUIT. lyx-quit is simply translated
to LFUN_QUIT so that the core knows what to do with it.
Anyway, what really _defines_ LFUN_QUIT is the block of code that is
acted on in the switch:
switch (action) {
...
case LFUN_QUIT:
QuitLyX();
break;
So, if you really want to know, read the source.
--
Angus
Re: Which name is supposed to define the intended behaviour of an LFUN?
Christian Ridderström wrote:
> So far it seems clear as crystal, but looking at the enum names and
> the strings for the user commands I get confused. Which one is
> supposed to "define"(*) the intended behaviour of the LFUN?
That's clear. LyX acts on LFUN_QUIT. "lyx-quit" is simply translated
to LFUN_QUIT so that the core knows what to do with it.
Anyway, what really _defines_ LFUN_QUIT is the block of code that is
acted on in the switch:
switch (action) {
...
case LFUN_QUIT:
QuitLyX();
break;
So, if you really want to know, read the source.
--
Angus
