Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> I know there could be potential problem but I have had a
Abdelrazak> closed look at these lfuns one by one. We are talking here
Abdelrazak> about simple editing lfun not something complicated.
Yes, but in the future we may want to add something to the main
dispatch machinery and expect it to be used everywhere.
If it were possible by C++ tricks (some private/friend thingy),
I'd like to enforece that in the code, actually.
Abdelrazak> Could be a good idea. But and this is a big BUT, I'd argue
Abdelrazak> that if an lfun needs to call another lfun, then that's a
Abdelrazak> design problem. So if you prefer, I can rework my patch so
Abdelrazak> that there is no dispatch call any more.
I would probably prefer that, indeed (unless the patch is too ugly).
OK, I'll see what I can do.
But I would like to stick to the policy that only lyxfunc::dispatch is
called directly.
OK.
Abdel.
