Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
For those not privy to the earlier discussion, the rationale here is
that such things ought to be replaced by character styles. We now have
such a style for code in the logicalmkup module, and with this
included one could bind a key to that charstyle if one wished.
Since we did not get rid of the other fonts changing lfuns (yet), I
would suggest to simply rename the lfun to LFUN_FONT_TYPEWRITER
instead. We need something to mirror LFUN_FONT_SANS and friends.
OK. I've committed a version that does that.
Longer term, what is the plan here? There does seem to be a general
consensus that using charstyles instead of explicit font changes is the
way to go, and that's probably also true for size changes. It solves all
kinds of problems. But it's a radical change, to be sure, and if we're
going to retain the same functionality, then we'd have to have
non-logical charstyles like CharStyle:Sans. But then, maybe these could
be named differently---Font:Sans, e.g.---and put elsewhere on the menus,
so at least they wouldn't be confused with the logical styles. (And then
we do what we can to convince our users not to use these things but to
define and use logical styles instead. At least with modules, that's a
little less painful.) Those fontstyles (tm) could be then defined in
stdfonts.inc and included everywhere.
Anyway, that's just a sketch. Does it seem along the right lines? Note:
I'm not actually proposing to do this myself right at the moment. I've
got a book to write.
Richard
--
==================================================================
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==================================================================
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
