On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 02:38:23PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> No, it is not....
>
> It is very convenient to use 99% of the times. It just works.
It does not work and it can't be worked around.
[Btw: Have you noted that you are accusing me of
being ignorant to certain kinds of usage patterns (and rightly so btw) but
do exactly the same with patterns that do not fit into your model?]
> >> Of course, as it is now, it causes problems (like two consecutive
> >> theorems),
>
> Andre> ... because of that. Moreover, it allows only changes on a
> Andre> paragraph level: No more, no less. Not all things are one
> Andre> paragraph.
>
> What do you mean?
It is not possible to have "sub-paragraph layouts" as I would think are
needed for "character styles" and it is not possible to have
"multi-paragraph" styles (like \begin{comment}...) - oh wait, nowadays we
don't use comment, we rather use a note. Which - surprisingly - is an
inset.
> Andre> And that's certainly Not Nice(tm). Andre> Do you know any other?
>
> For example have a checkbox in the layout>paragraph menu that says:
> 'break environment after paragraph' (or whatever). This would go
> together with the linbreak, space and line options. Then break-paragraph
> would set it and break-paragraph-keep-layout would leve it unset.
Well, I would not mind if this were implemented - even if this means extra
code which is completely unnecessary in the inset approach (where you
either have an inset with two paragraphs or two insets - again something
were order _is_ important...)
> Andre> [This is btw the typical situation with the "conventional Andre>
> approach": You get almost everything working, with a quite bit Andre> of
> effort a few cases more hacked in somehow, but the remaining Andre>
> things are technically impossible]
>
> Whereas with the structured approach, you get almost everything annoying
> to do,
Like what? What is annoying with the inset approach which works better on
the flat model?
> with quite a bit of effort the complexity is hidden somehow, but
> the latex experts will be able to do their favourite tricks.
>
> >> The ``theoretical'' approach of "let everything be an inset that can
> >> be inserted anywhere" just sucks when you actually want to write a
> >> document.
>
> Andre> Why? Have you tried it?
>
> When one will have created enumerate insets or theorem insets and that it
> will not be possible to switch from theorem to lemma without creating a
> new inset and cut-and-pasting the old one, I will complain and you will
> say: "I don't care. Fix that as you want".
LFUN_LAYOUT (or similar) could be used to switch the style of the inset
enclosing the cursor. Or an new LFUN_MUTATE if you want. Guess what mathed
does when going from inline do display to eqnarray etc...
> For me the capability to mutate an object is important and I really
> fear that the inset-everywhere approach will kill that.
See above.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
