On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 01:59:35PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > For example, the use of layouts (a flat thing) and depth to nest > environments is great.
No, it is not.... > Of course, as it is now, it causes problems > (like two consecutive theorems), ... because of that. Moreover, it allows only changes on a paragraph level: No more, no less. Not all things are one paragraph. > but this is something that can be > solved with enough thought. The only "solution" that can be implemented using the current approach is having four layouts "Single-paragraph theorem" "Multi-paragraph theorem, first par" "Multi-paragraph theorem, middle par" "Multi-paragraph theorem, last par" And that's certainly Not Nice(tm). Do you know any other? [This is btw the typical situation with the "conventional approach": You get almost everything working, with a quite bit of effort a few cases more hacked in somehow, but the remaining things are technically impossible] > The ``theoretical'' approach of "let everything be an inset that can be > inserted anywhere" just sucks when you actually want to write a document. Why? Have you tried it? We are more or less implementing it in small steps now anyway to solve "issues". ERT has gone inset, and this was Good. Minipage support has emerged - as insets. Tables are using "insets" nowadays etc. -- I wonder why we are discussing these things right now anyway. I was not suggesting moving outer world font changes to insets recently and the math font stuff is in since 1.3cvs was opened. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
