[LyX/master] Tab binding: outline-in before depth-increment
kornel at lyx.org
Sat Jan 9 17:20:37 UTC 2021
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?
Or by *any* ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
More information about the lyx-devel