Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Dov Feldstern <dfeldstern-rhxOsnTko2JWk0Htik3J/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
etc., etc. It becomes too ad-hoc, the code gets more and
more complicated in order to deal with ever-more specific cases, and we
are still not as flexible as possible.
Precisely, that's why what you propose (lower level) won't make things easier;
you'll have to develop many tools for each person's specific needs.
Not exactly. Since it's simple and predictable at the basic level, then
it's OK if the higher-level stuff only deals with 70-80% of cases ---
because where the high-level layer doesn't work, it's easy for the user
to manually do exactly what's wanted.
If there is no simple low-level, then if the solution deals only with
99%, it means that in 1% users are just stuck...
That's why I think we're better off starting with a very basic level: it
will allow maximum flexibility, because the user can do *anything*. And
it's a simple concept, so the user also knows exactly what to expect,
and can easily *see* what's going on if necessary. And as I explained,
we can still make it easier to work with by building layers on top of
that; but because it's simple at the basic level, then it's easy to
override in specific cases in which the more sophisticated layers don't
do exactly what the user wants. And then *we* don't have to provide for
every single case, but we still allow the user to deal with any case.
I don't follow you... The settings available with this approach (I mean
checkboxes and keyword) are already sufficient for most of usages (what's not
already possible actually? no much situations).
Maybe I don't want to follow any rules at all. I want to write one
paragraph --- not a note, not a branch, just a normal paragraph --- in
gibberish. But I don't want it spell checked. And on the other hand, I'm
writing this one note which will never be output, but I'm going to be
sharing this file --- as a LyX file --- with my thesis adviser, so I
really want to make sure that no spelling mistakes creep in...
The point is, I personally prefer the situation where I am able to do
*exactly* what I want, even if it requires more work, than the situation
where 95% of what I want to do is really easy to do, but the other 5%
are not doable at all...
Further, what's the most simple? 1) make a small patch using existing high level
mechanisms; 2) make a (bigger) patch at a low-level, and then code some high
level tools from start to manage the lower level.
Well, here you've got me. Certainly you've got the upper-hand: while I'm
just blabbering, you've gone and written code, and that certainly counts
for a lot :) .
Dov
