On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 04:06:10PM +0200, 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. > > > 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.
Code should not notify actions... Andre'
