Re: [patch] RTL cursor display on inset edges

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 03.06.2007 um 21:28 schrieb Dov Feldstern:

Stefan Schimanski wrote:

1) In Text2.cpp, in the condition "if (cur.boundary() && ! bidi.isBoundary...", it should be:

       return setCursor(cur, cur.pit(), cur.pos(), true, false);
and not, as you have:
       return setCursor(cur, cur.pit(), cur.pos() + 1, true, false);
(the + 1 is wrong; see what happens at the end of a line)

Isn't that what we discussed before that we want to jump +1 after a boundary? If you have no space at the line end, you jump directly over the next character, i.e. you end up at row.pos+1. If there is a space you are at row.pos.

Almost. The jump should be from *before* the last character on the previous line to *before* the first character on the next line. With your current suggestion, it's from *after* the last character on the previous line to *after* the first character on the next line. A slight difference, but I think the former is more natural. It's also the way used to work (1.3.X). I pretty sure you just mis- copied from a different line, by mistake.

No, no. In fact I think this is more natural. You jump to the line end (after the last character on the line) and then after the first in the next line. Jumping directly into the next line is strange.

Give me an example where this is wrong. I think it's exactly what we want

Here's where it's wrong: Take a paragraph with a line break with no space (i.e., aaaaaaaaa.... until after the linebreak). Now, move the cursor to *after* the last character on the first line. Go RIGHT once, then LEFT twice and you'll end up at the original position. This is wrong.

Right. But note that we are talking about big lines without space. So we are speaking here about a case which probably never appears anyway. And I am really getting tired. I think we are the only ones caring about that, still no OK, no comment, no nothing from anybody about all this RTL stuff :-/

(btw, I took that from your patch after realizing that it is in fact the right thing to do ;-) )

Good, I'm glad we now agree on what *should* be :) . But I believe the +1 is just mis-copied from a different line. My suggestion was to first apply this: http://permalink.gmane.org/ gmane.editors.lyx.devel/86074 (which is exactly your current patch, except for the +1 business, and an insignificant change in the order of some of the clauses), and then and then this: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/ 86169.

But please, let's commit... This is getting very confusing...

Stefan

Right. I will prepare now a last set of patches and post them as a proposal in a new thread. I think here nobody follows us anymore...

PGP.sig
Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht