Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Are you just trying to avoid the discussion?
No, I just believe that the model of updating after the lfun execution
is a robust one.
That what I understood yes :-)
If not and you genuinely want to discuss then I'd say yes,
basically. This example shows that we do a lot of things in LyX at
the wrong place and at the wrong time. The fundamental problem is
not this little problem, it lies in the design. The external event
could well have been an internal event but it's rare enough to not
notice it.
If LyX continues to use lfuns to do its work (but I know people want
to bypass that for the sake of... of something), I do not see what
kind of internal event could go through. Actually, this is why I
insist we should go through lyx::dispatch as much as possible. if you
do not want to do it because it gives you shivers in the spin, we can
let everybody be free, but I fear the 38 calls to updateLabels
discussed recently will look like a benign problem wrt the signals
explosion that will result from every piece of code being responsible
of knowing how its actions may change the availability/status of some
other lfuns.
I think you are only trying to scare yourself ;-)
Anyway, this is not for now anyway as we already have enough to do; and
I'd really like to have 1.6 out sooner than later.
Abdel.
