In the end, I don't think this will be needed. But yes, the
serialization here is a hassle, and it's sheer luck that it isn't a problem.
How would an optimal/a better solution look like in your opinion?
[Serious question]
Well, there are advantages to the serialization. I can't remember what
they are ;-), but I have seen them. That said, this is the normal flow
from controller to core: The controller has a copy of
InsetCommandParams; it wants to pass that information upstream to the
inset. So what it does is serialize them, call an LFUN, and then the
kernel reads the stream back into an InsetCommandParams. So you have to
do it this way if you want to use dispatch, etc, rather than some sort
of direct interaction with the kernel. I'd have to look a lot more
closely to see what that would be like exactly. But surely there's some
way to just hand the inset its new parameters.
Richard
--
==================================================================
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==================================================================
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
