For now, I would propose to have the function do nothing in this case, but not be disabled.
I am not sure that the different UIs allow radio buttons. JMarc Le 12 novembre 2014 13:07:05 CET, Richard Heck <rgh...@lyx.org> a écrit : >On 11/12/2014 11:06 AM, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: >> As the choices are exclusive, shouldn't this be a radio button >instead >> of individual checkmarks? In this way it would be self explanatory -- >> or I am missing the point completely? > >Yes, this would be even better. But that would involve more surgery. > >Richard > > >> >> A/ >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org> >wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 12. November 2014 um 10:30:53, schrieb Richard Heck ><rgh...@lyx.org> >>>> On 11/12/2014 09:23 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >>>>> 2014-11-12 6:18 GMT+01:00 Scott Kostyshak: >>>>> >>>>> This comes up particularly when the user right-clicks on a >Note inset. >>>>> Before, the user could click on the same type of Note and the >document >>>>> would be marked as dirty, even if nothing changed. >>>>> >>>>> With the patch, if you right-click on the note, the "note" >part with >>>>> the checkmark will be greyed out. I think that makes it more >clear >>>>> (the user will realize "I can't click on that because that's >what it >>>>> already is"), but I wanted to check here first. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure. I think, visually, greying out could be irritating >(as >>>>> if this type is not valid). Maybe we can just not dispatch the >>>>> function in this case? >>>> I like Scott's solution. Though even better would be if it were >also >>>> checked. Is it? >>> +1. Tried, and it is also checked >>> >>>> Richard >>> Kornel
