[LyX/master] Tab binding: outline-in before depth-increment

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:51:01PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 01:07:27PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 06:20:37PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > Am Sat, 9 Jan 2021 12:07:06 -0500
> > > schrieb Scott Kostyshak <skostysh at lyx.org>:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 09:06:56AM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > > > > Am Freitag, dem 08.01.2021 um 20:32 -0500 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:  
> > > > > > It would be nice to get someone else's feedback (Jürgen?) before you
> > > > > > work on it. I see a few possibilities:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. A tag that does not allow layouts to nest other layouts of the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > >    type.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. A tag that does not allow a layout to be nested at all.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 3. A tag that is similar to the "AutoNests" tag, where we can list
> > > > > > all
> > > > > >    of the layouts that a layout should not nest (or should not be
> > > > > > nested by?).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (3) is the most general so my initial guess is that's the way to go.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > like your name for the tag that you proposed earlier,
> > > > > > ProhibitNesting.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > NeverNestedBy with "none" indicating a layout cannot be nested at all?
> > > > > The analog function is AutoNestedBy (not AutoNests), and I suppose most
> > > > > of the code can just be copied.  
> > > > 
> > > > That name is fine with me. I think I slightly prefer the sound of
> > > > "ProhibitNestingBy". I guess "NeverNestedBy" is more a property of the
> > > > underlying LaTeX mechanism (e.g., "a section is never nested in another
> > > > section") and "ProhibitNestingBy" is more a property of LyX's layout
> > > > feature (e.g., "LyX will prohibit the user from nesting a section in
> > > > another section"). I'm not familiar with the layout code, so whatever
> > > > you and Riki think is more consistent is fine with me.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, it takes me a little while to parse "never nested by none", but
> > > > would it make more sense for "never nested by *all*" to mean a layout
> > > > that cannot be nested at all?
> > > > 
> > > > Scott
> > > 
> > > Or by *any* ?
> > 
> > Good idea, that does sound better than "all".
> 
> Should I open an enhancement request to log these thoughts so we don't
> forget about them?

Riki I'm guessing you won't have time to take care of this layout change
before 2.4.0. The question then is whether to revert 9ab9f2b1. However,
if we revert this commit, we reintroduce #11576.

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20210412/e06e25a8/attachment.asc>