Marking inverted branch insets

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 05:06:59PM +0300, Yuriy Skalko wrote:
> > > I'm working on the highly variative document that contains many branches
> > > frequently changing their states. And it is not very convenient because it
> > > is impossible to see immediately if current branch inset is inverted or not.
> > > Have you experienced such issue? What do you think about marking inverted
> > > insets in some way? Maybe darker/different label color? Or some additional
> > > symbol like "!"?
> > 
> > 
> > I have experienced this also. I think using a symbol is better for
> > accessibility reasons. Perhaps additionally changing the color could be
> > considered as well.
> 
> Thanks for fast reply, Scott!
> I'm glad to know that it is not only my problem.
> 
> 
> > > Really I'm also thinking about more flexible system -- to connect branch
> > > insets to branches using logical expressions. So the branch inset could have
> > > logical combination of existing branches, not just branch name with optional
> > > inversion. For example now it is impossible to have a part of the document
> > > that will be outputted when any of 2 branches is active. But with logical
> > > expressions we will have inset "FirstBranch or SecondBranch" that solves
> > > this task. More complex combinations also will be possible.
> > 
> > I like this idea a lot. I would also be interested in a dependency
> > structure of branches (i.e., not variable by insets) along the lines of
> > "branch Q depends on branch C and branch D so to activate branch Q,
> > branches C and D must also be activated". I think we should think hard
> > about exactly what features we want and the interface. Ideally we would
> > extend the current functionality without making the interface much more
> > complex for most users who I think do not use branches in the way you
> > and I have in mind.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Scott
> 
> Really logical AND operation on branches can be implemented now by nesting
> insets. Do you want to get separate Q to get simpler expressions/insets in
> other places in the document?

Good question. Indeed I have used nested branches until now. But I find
the nesting annoying, and I always have to pause to think what should I
nest in what? But thinking about it more, perhaps your proposed feature
would work for what I want. I don't have much time to think about this
more now, but I do like that we're having this discussion. Perhaps we
should write down a few use cases that would motivte which features we
consider.

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/20211020/1dd92129/attachment-0001.asc>