On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 06:15:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Which sum, which "environment"?
>
> Mmm good point, I wasn't thinking straight. I blame the fact that those
> icons are confusing. Although I try it with \Pi and it doesn't seem to
> work entirely properly anyway...
>
> > So far I am opting for "correctness" which even allows a resonable clean
> > implementation of the "advanced" stuff, and I am trying to smooth the
> > really bad cases of counter-intuitive UI (while maintaining some kind of
> > backwards compatiblility with 1.1.6). Not exactly trivial.
>
> Of course. It's a difficult job.
>
> > Putting everything in an inset certainly is something people are not used
> > to from other word processors but at least I got used to it. So if you want
> > to help improve things, name annoyances one by one not "correctness should
> > be less important than UI".
>
> Well this is one. You yourself admit that there doesn't seem to be a use
> for non-idempotent font environments. Why can we not do what you do in
> this cases - change it, and see who complains about it ?
Because changing it is extra code. And I don't see a benefit here. The
contruct is perfectly legal code. Maybe some .html renderer renders
<b><b>..</b></b> as "extra bold". So why should we make LyX unusable for
that purpose - by adding extra messy code, no less!?
> Leaving it like it is blocks this from the natural UI interpretation,
> i.e. a combo box.
Now I understand what your problem is. You want a _set_ of font changes,
not a _list_. I.e. in your model \fontfoo{\fontbar{...}} is equivalent to
\fontbar{\fontfoo{...}}, whereas in mine it is not.
So the correct question in this case would be "how to I get a set of
'active' font changes and how do I remove one of them". In this case the
answer is "the second part is not trivial to implement if only part of the
change should be reverted".
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
