argh, I've just sent a summary. I'll address the additional things below
here.
On 15 Jan 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> You want an unique number for each LFUN (dynamic from each run of Lyx
> of course)?
>
> This can easily be done by having a separate method for this. From the
> menu code you ask for a "LFUN" number and you can use that to
> access/dispatch the LFUN later.
>
> This will also mean that we only store as many number as there will be
> different requests for the "LFUN"s. (Not something I care a lot
> about). (we store this in a vector f.ex. that contains iterators into
> the real LFUN map.) (actually by this you get O(1) access to numbered
> LFUNs.)
This is very very close to what I'm suggesting anyway. I could live with
this approach (the crucial thing is allowing integer-based Dispatch
lookup). Ok, so the enum is dead.
> Oh, autogeneration of documentation is ok, but now of source files (I
> even have problems with .fd and .moc :-), but I won't object to those)
yikes !
> Perhaps we really agree.
most of it I think
> (Levon is just easier to remember)
no problem :)
> I am well aware of this, and this has been in the plan from when we
> decided that the LyXFunc needed a rework.
ok
thanks
john
--
"Threads are for people who can't program state machines."
- Alan Cox
