Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | Mainly because this levels the ground for 'dynamic insets' with
>> | auto-registration on startup and all these fancy things.
>>
>> I have no idea what a "dynamic inset" is.
>
| Think plugin.
inset-insert-pluginfoo still works...
>> | I think it should be possible to extend tab-completion to the arguments
>> | as well, so I could imagine a 'M-x inset-insert la<TAB>' yields
>> | 'inset-insert label' at some point of time.
>>
>> sure it is possible, with a lot of extra code.
>> so far I don't see the benefit.
>
| That's why I did not recommend a either solution but said 'simply
| duplicate the code'. The code that's already there seems to support the
| 'single lfun' approach, so this recommendation is actually supporting
| your approach...
And it is not hard to combine the handling of very similar lfuns
further back in the processing.
--
Lgb
