andre ambled
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:18:51AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Essentially, there would be some kind of meta-command, which rather
> > than issuing commands for immediate execution, instead pushes them
> > onto a stack.
> Yes, I think that's the way to go. But this probably means we have to
> choose the "prefered script language" first, rolling our own is not really
> an option...
I know, and that's been going for years :) That's why I'm mulling a
stack rather than a language. I'm not sure we even need a preferred
language--just a way for lyx to call an arbitrary program (presumably
the language) which can issue commands back to lyx would do. We could
limit macros to be distributed with lyx to one particular language for
maintainablity.
> > Aside from the "wait for character", I'm don't think anything here goes
> > beyond the multi-command sequence that existed before (is it still in
> > the code?)
> I hope so... was my first contribution to LyX IIRC ;-)
:)
I think almost all of what I wrote is gone now . . .
> "Waiting for a char" is more than a line, though...
Yes, but a function to call it would be a single line.
hawk
--
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
