Dov Feldstern wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I had comments about the goto about which I asked others to state their
opinion. I implemented the isRTL() method specifically for Elazar's
patch; so it's not like we don't help at all... If you want more Dov,
you should be proactive and ask for commit access. You seem to be very
cautious so I don't think JMarc will deny it. And at last we will have
someone in charge of this stuff.
Abdel, you're so touchy!
It was not meant to sound touchy, sorry :-)
I'm willing to accept commit access, of course, and I'm even willing to
be in charge of this stuff, at least for now. But I have very little
time that I can actually put into LyX --- this week I've been putting in
way more than I can afford --- so I don't want my getting commit access
to be under any false pretenses. But if it helps, even if I will only
commit from time to time, then sure, I'd be happy to get access. JMarc?
Commit access does not mean that you have to work more, don't worry. It
just means that _we_ get less work ;-)
And it is a hint also that you are willing to _stay_; and that is even
more important to us.
About you reverseDirection() patch, I am not sure that all RTL users
will agree with you that the outer paragraph should drive the cursor
movement. As I said, this is fine for small insets but not for
multi-paragraph insets. I think we should try to implement something
similar to Elazar's patch for mathed instead. If you can't do that
then I'll apply your patch temporarily.
Okay, I think that I have a better example now for explaining why I
think my approach is correct:
Using the current version (with Elazar's patch already in), try moving
the cursor in the attached document (a math inset inside a footnote). It
gets stuck again in the math inset, even after Elazar's patch, just
because the math inset is now one level deeper!
But if we fix the navigation problem in the footnote, won't this
automatically solves this problem too? The way I see it, the problem
here is that the navigation in the footnote should be LTR, independently
of the outer paragraph.
Understand me, I know there are problems but maybe we could try a bit
more fine grained than your solution?
Ask Elazar, I imagine that he would agree with me that that's not the
desirable situation. There's no way around it: you have to be consistent
with how you interpret the arrow keys throughout the paragraph, as soon
as the interpretation is relative to the level you're at --- you get
stuck. If instead of the isRTL() method used in that patch, we would use
the function I'm proposing, which looks at the outermost paragraph, I
believe the problem would not still exist.
I'll try your patch and report back.
I'll add fix this and add it to my suggested patch, I'll also fix the
spacing issues that Andre' pointed out, we can wait to hear Elazar's
opinion if you want --- but I really think that what I'm suggesting is
the way that most bidi users would prefer.
OK.
Abdel.
