"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Do you still display the original one as the trunk does? >> >> I do not think it is necessary. What one wants to see are the current >> bindings, not all the history that lead to them. A bit like how >> about:config works in firefox. > > If you remove the item, how can you revert?
You still have the lfun, but there is no binding associated to it. If you revert, you restore all bindings instead of only one, but I do not think this is a very bad problem. > It is definitely helpful to list all lfuncs as the trunk does, because > there is otherwise no way for a user to know what lfuncs are > available. > This seems to be what MS Word is doing. But then, what does the remove > button do? Removing all shortcuts related to a lfunc? I guess the > remove button should be moved to the shortcut edit box... Yes. > Then there is no 'removal' for this unmatched \bind "". Sorry, I am a bit lost. What is the unmatched \bind ""? Care to give a concrete example. The fact that some things do not work well in the dialog prevent me to have a good feeling of how it is supposed to work. > In the end, I see that you want to list lfunc with all related > keybindings, using a more complicated shortcut edit dialog. In the > dialog, you still need to unbind a shortcut specifically to that lfunc > (which is not saved as such in user.bind). There is still no better > way to handle the 'unmatched unbind'. I really do not see any > improvement here. In the UI, one remove the shortcut. In the bind file, one adds an extra bind. It is not so difficult... So I guess that my point (but keep in mind that I am evolving as I write) is that the UI should index on lfuns, whereas bind files index on bindings. JMarc
