On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:14:56PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 16/01/2016 18:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:15:44PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:40:21PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > >>> > >>>Maybe ¶ does not grow on you as it did on me, but ultimately it is going > >>>to be your call. > >> > >>Maybe ¶ is also easier to implement and distinguishable by its different > >>shading rather than color. > > > >I just discovered the reversed pilcrow sign ⁋ (u+204b) and used this in > >the attached patch. If this is acceptable as a parbreak separator there > >would be no problem as regards distinguishability. > > > > The patch seems safe to me although I am not an expert of such code.
I have difficulties interpreting this as a +1. > However, for the reversed pilcrow, there was issues with it recently > (see d9524321). I cannot see anything related to the reversed pilcrow there. > I noticed something interesting: a parbreak separator can be used in the > middle of an itemize environment to start a new latex paragraph in the > item (using existing tricks to get to get the cursor after the > separator) as an alternative to using a new lyx paragraph + indentation. Yes, I also use many times the trick of forcing lyx into inserting something that normally would not be inserted in order to perform useful things. I would be annoyed if some forbidden operation would not be really possible anymore... -- Enrico
