On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:35:42PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:28:26PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:46:35AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:53:26AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > > At least latex lets me change from "\emph{This is marked}" to
> > > > "\emph{This} is \emph{marked}" without retyping any text. :-)
> > >
> > > This is implementable with 'boxes in boxes', too.
> >
> > The question isn't whether it's implementable, it's whether it's natural
> > UI to present to the user. And it's not, regardless of what the
> > implementation looks like.
> >
> > Otherwise Helge would have written \emph{This \nonemph{is} marked}
>
> That is not how I think about editing or styles.
> If I "unapply" some style in the middle, then I split the
> styled part, I do not add a layer of non-style.
I guess we really need two operations here:
- insert nested style
- split current inset
Both are useful under certain circumstances.
> If this sort of thing won't be possible, how will the alternative
> way be to edit? How will a user remove wrong markup, for
> this will be necessary at times.
I mathed with the 'pullArg' mechanism: place cursor at begin of the
wrong inset and press backspace...
> What do you consider the natural UI?
... which might not be 'natural' but people certainly got used to it
(this was present in the old mathed already...)
> Delete & rewrite the text? (too much work)
> Use some way of undo a whole piece of markup, then
> re-mark pieces if necessary?
To replace \mathbb{xx|x} by \mathbb{|xxx} with cursor inside at '|'
this would be <Pos1> <Backspace> C-b. No retyping.
Andre'
