"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" <v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl> writes: > Would this mean the end of LFUN_NEXT_INSET_MODIFY too ?
Yes, but for this one I have to handle undo too. I wonder whether I shall put that in the general handling or add a recordUndo call for each individual INSET_MODIFY call. > And no "next-inset inset-toggle" construction after all ? I finally convinced myself it was easier. In particular, we know that we can invoke Inset::dispatch directly without running into an assertion. I like this solution, but if a better idea emerges, I can revert. I committed because I did not get much feedback when posting the pach. Committing always produce more feedback :) JMarc
