On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:49:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > No, but you have to be persistent and have good arguments.
Well I do my best ;) > | (I'm still trying to come to terms with Tabular Material Stuff Contents > | or whatever it is) > > I have so far not seen any arguments that are obviously better than > what we currenly have. I'll try one last time to summarise why it's a needed improvement in a separate post, ok ? > | This is excusing one bug by means of another bug in fact. We need real > | UI for depth decrement. > > Then create that before you change what we have now. OK. > | (In fact I would be a little less bothered if depth-decrement was > | circular too, but ideal would be to pin it at the min/max - "infinity" > | key presses are thousands of times easier to type than 3 key presses) > > I have been thinking about this as part of the counter changes. > After a couple of more patch-rounds there will not be anything in lyx > that stops us from having unlimited depth itemize and enumerate > nesting.... but it does not really make sense... Well it's nice to have a flexible implementation but it's not really useful as you point out. And it doesn't change the fact that there is a maximum at any one point (i.e. current level + 1) regards john -- "Are you willing to go out there and save the lives of our children, even if it means losing your own life ? Yes I am. I believe you, Jeru... you're ready."
