On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:42:23AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > | At some point of time we could make our minds up whether we want a > | general LFUN_INSET_INSERT + name or special LFUN_INSET_FOO lfuns. > > I think there should be special LFUN_INSET_FOO lfuns. > > mostly because if fits easier witht he minibuffer and tab-completion.
*grin* I think the opposite. Mainly because this levels the ground for 'dynamic insets' with auto-registration on startup and all these fancy things. I think it should be possible to extend tab-completion to the arguments as well, so I could imagine a 'M-x inset-insert la<TAB>' yields 'inset-insert label' at some point of time. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
