Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Yes, but we have been through this ealier as well. Remember that this
| > is not the first time I have posted the any patch.
|
| Only vaguely (as in I remember a patch but not what it contained). It was
about
| a year ago, no? Judging from the comments of at least three of us, it is
pretty
| clear that noone else remembers your earlier answers to the queries they
raised
| this time around either.
Yes. All of you have pea-brains. (I was not here friday, retaliating now)
| > I could have said. "No, the any patch does not close that door. We
| > just have to provide a more explicit mechanism."
|
| That would have been politer than "bs"...
|
| The principal point is the same irrespective of the tone we use; a documented
| and consistent lyxserver/minibuffer "language" and associated translation
engine
| to boost::any LFUNs strikes me as being a large body of work. If you introduce
| boost::any LFUNs, you are essentially committing yourself to undertake this
| project.
Note that this can be done piecemeal, only LFUNS that take something
else than std::string as arg needs the proper conversion setup.
| Given that you're also committed to Unicode, and the fact that you
| don't appear (from a distance, admittedly) to have a great deal of spare time
to
| devote to LyX, I wonder if you're not spreading your resources too thinly.
Note that unicode is currently held up by the inability to send
anything else than std::string as args to FuncRequest. (And I don't
want to convert back and forth uft-8 <-> ucs-4 (or utf-16) all the
time.)
So I am currently stalled by boost::any discussions.
--
Lgb
