Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 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 have no idea what a "dynamic inset" is.
| 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.
sure it is possible, with a lot of extra code.
so far I don't see the benefit.
--
Lgb
