Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:38:52PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> | 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.
>> >
>> | Think plugin.
>>
>> inset-insert-pluginfoo still works...
>
| but LFUN_INSERT_PLUGIN_FOO will not as this is set at compile time.
so not a true plugin then... when plugin things will be done a bit
differently.
>> | duplicate the code'. The code that's already there seems to support the
>> | 'single lfun' approach, so this recommendation is actually supporting
>> | your approach...
>>
>> And it is not hard to combine the handling of very similar lfuns
>> further back in the processing.
>
| Yes, but it is not possible to create new lfuns at run tim right now..
it will be.
--
Lgb
