[LyX/master] Tab binding: outline-in before depth-increment
Scott Kostyshak
skostysh at lyx.org
Fri Oct 22 02:08:44 UTC 2021
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> 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.
Ping, but no worries if no time.
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/20211021/4e0dd2f0/attachment-0001.asc>
More information about the lyx-devel
mailing list