On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:01:24PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:55:37PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Inset splitting could be a new lfun bound to whatever key you want.
> >
> > \foo{xxxx|xxxx} + <Key> -> \foo{xxxx}|\foo{xxxx}
> >
> > or even
> >
> > \foo{xx[xx|]xxxx} + <Key> -> \foo{xx}[xx|]\foo{xxxx}
> >
> > where [xx] is the selection.
>
> Sorry, I do not agree that significantly helps the problem.
>
> > > [...]
> > > * "the mailing list looks scary"
> > > * "I'm too busy"
> > > * "I suppose the designers know what they're doing, who am I to disagree?"
> > > * "I'm not using the latest LyX, perhaps it's fixed"
> > > "Sod this, I'm going back to scientific word (or whatever)"
> > > * "I don't know how to describe my problem well"
> > > "It's not important enough to report"
> >
> > We get complaints on other issues, so the only valid point on this list
> > so the marked (*) items do not apply. The last one would confirm my
> > point that the UI is more or less ok. Leaves one. Hard to count those...
>
> Sorry, I can't parse this paragraph of yours at all.
We get complaints on other issues, so the only valid /item/ on this list
/is the first unmarked item as the marked ones/
do not apply. The last /unmarked item/ would confirm my
point that the UI is more or less ok. Leaves one /valid item/.
> > UI related thing of wihich _you_ cannot decide whether it goes to Insert
> > or to Edit?
>
> What I'm telling you is that the problem goes completely away with
> ranges, because we then have a natural interface:
>
> Edit->Text_Style->Noun
> Emphasis
> Badger
> Other...
And? We just keep this. Clicking on this entry inserts a new inset of
this type.
If you really want, you can add two or three generic items (undo inner
level, split inner box, merge adjacent boxes) but I doubt anybody ever
will use them as soon as he discovered the keyboaerd short cuts.
[In fact, in the light of the remark below I fear we should have done so
a long time ago...]
> > So you want to apply to a larger range than necessary and expect it to
> > work out nicely? I am really lost now.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > If you'll allow me to rephrase this as "Why isn't this currently a
> > > problem?", the answer is because insets currently represent disjoint
> > > parts of a text: footnotes, margin notes, minipages. It thus makes no
> > > sense to able to select across a boundary, because that boundary does
> > > not intersect a region of text as it appears in the output.
> >
> > And it will staty like this even on a sub-par level.
>
> No it won't.
>
> ----------
> text|boldtext|normaltext
> ----------
>
> Those boundaries not intersect a region of text as it appears in the
> output.
>
> > > the absence of LCS. The thing with Noun is just a testing thing
> > > because it's currently implemented both ways in CVS lyx. I am sure you
> > > must be aware of this and are just being facetious for some reason.
> >
> > You are comparing usability of boxes and main text based on the current
> > implementation of LCS. This is not fair given their relative maturity.
>
> Agreed, but I'm also considering future improvements that the team have
> planned.
Why not use mathed as 'almost state of the art reference
implementation' then?
> > > I can't even unapply a change of some text to bold in mathed without
> > > running round the houses.
> >
> > What's wrong with <Pos1> <Backspace>?
>
> The fact that you had to tell me how to do that ?
Huh?
Ah... I am starting to see the light. You did not know that it was
possible to remove a box without manuall cut&paste?
Well, given this restriction, all-boxes is indeed clumsy. Maybe that's
the reason that this feature was already present in Alejandro's
mathed...
So why not sit down and try all-boxes usability again? I'd even
implement the 'cut box' and 'glue boxes' if you felt this would help...
> That it's not direct manipulation ?
Direct manipulation? Of course. This removes the innermost box and spits
its contents into the box above.
> That it's different from everything else ?
Different from what? MS Word? Sure. But then it's _us_ who claims to do
structured editing, not them...
Andre'
