On 10/03/2010 23:09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 10/03/2010 09:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Well this whole issue is because I made the opposite change...
I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to
create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when the use of
user defined insets can be generalized then inset-modify could work
straight away.
The problem, as I see it, is that inset-modify is really
inset-params-modify. It does not require any cursor position, because
it acts on the global parameters of the inset. In this sense it is
particularly relevant to use the AtPoint flag.
Tabular features are different, since they depend on the cursor
position. In this sense, they should not be handled via inset-modify.
Well, it does modify the inset so it's OK to have it in there.
But I agree about the distinction beween inset-modify and
inset-params-modify. Basically inset-modify should be about modifying
the content (and can depend on the Cursor position) and
inset-params-modify should be about modifying the parameter of the
inset, without touching the contents.
A possibility would be to handle this in InsetTableCell::dispatch, but
I am not sure this make lots of sense.
I think it does.
So my new proposal would be to keep inset-modify as it is (or rename
it) and recreate the tabular-feature lfun, since it is such a special
beast.
Let's discuss this a bit more. The immediate bugs are fixed for now.
Abdel.
