On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 06:39:30PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>>>"Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >Tommaso> While this could be useful to allow activation of the > >Tommaso> functionality from the action buffer or a script, why don't > >Tommaso> just call the method, instead, from the GUI classes ? > > > >This was part of the Model/View/Controller separation of the code. The > >idea was that the controllers should only use lfuns instead of direct > >code. I am not very sure myself that this is useful. > > I personally think the use of LFUN to request a change is fine and > useful; useful because it forces us to think about how to design the > LFUN in a GUI independent way (when it applies).
It could be a plain library interface nevertheless. The string based interface is useful for the LyX server, but that's not in active widesprecd use. > What I personally dislike (I should probably say "hate" ;-)) and what I > intent to change in 1.6 is the serialization used in order to retrieve > information from the core (the initParam() and such). That's plain stupid indeed. Andre'
