On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:10:59AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:07:25AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > Instead of having this kind of hack in 20 places, one place is better. > > True... but it could perhaps be flagged up ?
Ok. Actually I think it is needed in one place and the current place is the right one. > > Care to explain what's wrong with that? > > This is clearly labelling a massive problem with the current cursor > code: that is, you cannot just set the cursor at abritrary x,y and > expect the inset locking to place the cursor there. Why? There is no such problem in math, so this can't be a generic technical problem. > This is why page down, etc. work so badly with long tables. I don't think inset locking is the cause for bad table behaviour. Inset locking is on the 'to die' list for other reasons, though: Too complex and not needed with a "deep cursor", so in case you're right the problems should magically vanish when IL is gone. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
