On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But _I_ happen to like clear threshold between different things, the > > kind of threshold is naturally achieved by insets. So why, as a user, > > do I have to suffer your way of typing? This goes the other way around > > obviously. With insets at least we can offer my preferred UI and we > > can get close to your preferred UI. With font based implementation we > > can only achieve your preferred UI; my preferred UI will be very > > complicated to implement. So, to me, the choice is clear. > > This shows the problem very well. I do not care about you. I do not > care about me either. If we were to design LyX to suit our habits, we > would just get that: a program with one user. > > Contrary to you, I never said that inset were a o-no. I just said that > the current interface shows the bowels of the code. In the case of > mathed, I use the inset metaphor because there is no way out, but in > many cases, it makes me use more keystrokes than latex would, and > being used to type <space> repeatedly to go out of an inset means that > one eventually gets out of the formula and have to go back in it. This > sucks. I do not want to have such a way of working in text. It is as > simple as that.
You know about "locked" insets, right? C-b x C-i gives you a "monolithic" bold x that is traversed in a single keystroke. Andre'
