On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:55:07PM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> In other words: Rather than building a new API for accessing the
> LyX document, we exploit that we already have such an API: The
> LyX format!
this is really a moot point.
> We discussed this feature at the last LyX developers meeting
> in Norway, but we did not have the time to implement it. I don't
> think it would be too hard to do it, but the real question is this:
> If people do not understand what the external inset in its present
> form is able to do
I understand what it can do. And it is extremely limited. Random example: spellcheck.
Random example 2: copy and paste. Basically the entire lyx internals are not
available (of course you know this).
> Furthermore, I think we should draw another bold conclusion: Nobody would
> really make full use of a complete document API either. People might
> say that they would, but in reality, it would still be simpler just to
> hack the LyX code itself.
I agree with this, I was just playing devil's advocate against your comment that
the external inset can do anything remotely like what was asked for : it can't.
> So, realistically, we will get the best cost/benefit ratio by just
> doing as now: Let people hack the code directly, or in the rare
> occasions people need it, simply extend the LyX server with whatever
> commands people require from time to time.
agreed. Lyx is nowhere near mature enough for a proper document model, and I doubt
it will be, and I doubt it's really useful.
regards
john
