"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > \textbf is simpler than \strong because > > 1. it is simply \textbf, and \strong can be anything, and to > understand what is \strong, someone needs to understand what is > charstyle, and where to look for its definition, and figure out, in > the end, that it is \textbf (in most cases).
Yes, but learning is good. > 2. it is easier to toggle boldface. A simple operation (usually C-B) > can switch bold face on and off even for a sentense with mixed normal > and bold text. It is much more difficult to work with inset charstyle. > The 'backspace at the beginning of the inset' trick looks more like > magic. This is a very good point, but unrelated to the bold issue. The people who push for font as an inset should put their code where their mouth is and make the interface usable (José?). For example we could have a charstyle-toggle lfun that is like charstyle-insert except that, when one tries to insert a charstyle in itself, it dissolves instead. I am not sure it will be enough to make the thing work well, but it is a major problem with the font change as inset idea. And before you ask Bo, I still think we do not need a bold icon/menu :) JMarc
