Le 12/01/2016 22:49, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:04:33AM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote:
Dear Enrico,
Thank you for the recent patches that took into account some of my remarks.
I have been using master a lot recently and I noticed another issue
which annoyed me: In 2.1, the behaviour when typing Enter at the
beginning of a paragraph is consistently to start a new paragraph before
it. In 2.2, the behaviour changes and sometimes it introduces a parbreak
separator instead, after a non-standard paragraph. The behaviour is now
inconsistent. I think that the introduction of a parbreak separator
after a non-standard paragraph should only happen on an empty paragraph.
This does not change the amount of Enter required to introduce a
separator from a non-standard paragraph, but restores the consistency of
introducing a new paragraph with Enter at the start of a paragraph.
Please, can you try the attached patch and report back whether it does
what you expect?
It does, thank you. That was definitely the small issue that was the
most annoying in practice. Have my "+1" for the patch.
Now I noticed that the "after" position can still be accessed with mouse
clicks at the end of the line. I imagine that there can still be many
commands that can produce this "after" position.
A second issue I just noticed is when deleting the separator: the
paragraph after should not immediately be merged with the one that
contains the deleted separator, if none is empty, I think. Hitting Del
should just remove the separator. (To test this, start with two
non-empty enumerate environments with a par break separator at the end
of the first one, and then try to delete the separator.)
Then, please let me thank you for your reports aimed at improving the
overall user experience. I only regret that they are the only ones
after almost two years from the introduction of env separators and that
they come just before a release, when the time for testing is not so
much.
Still better than users complaining during beta! or after release...
You are welcome. What might have contributed to the lack of feedback is
that it was a sum of many small details that take time and effort to
disentangle. This sort of issues is very hard to report. Also in my
case, although I wanted to report them, I first wanted to understand the
rationale, so I was waiting for some documentation, since it was marked
as undocumented on the wiki...
Also, I wanted to say that given that I did not follow the original
conversations, I have more of a user's view on this, so I do not think
that my comments are redundant. Users, new users, now, and in two years,
are not going to care about historic reasons for such interface choices...
Agreed.
For the symbol itself, my suggestion was a very elongated version of ⌟,
meant to recall the plain separator inset. But, a character that
would match the meaning would be the pilcrow sign (¶). One would just
have to make sure the a grey pilcrow sign (from end-of-paragraph marks)
is not displayed after a red pilcrow sign because this would look weird
(although could be allowed as a temporary measure). On the other hand,
what was the idea behind your suggestion of ↔ ?
The symbol should not be too large, because it can also appear at the
end of a line when importing old documents, so that the appearance
would be ugly. The ↔ is simply a symbol that cannot be exchanged with
the newline one and also gives the idea of a separator, although it
probably fails to convey the concept that it introduces a blank line
in the latex output.
Yes, this is what I think for ↔. So what about a red ¶ ? This now seems
the appropriate choice to me for a par break. The color distance with
the end-of-paragraph marks (light grey) is sufficient.
Finally, for the entry method, you are already changing the meaning of
"Alt+M P" from "parbreak separator" to "plain separator", so in any case
you are already making a choice. I wanted to say that if the one who
implements a new feature does not think about what is the best default,
who does? I had to configure LyX for several co-authors and already have
too much settings to remember to change (enabling paragraph marks,
setting forward-search, some shortcuts...).
If you think that hitting enter should introduce a plain separator
instead of a parbreak one, this would be accomplished in the sources
with a really trivial change. I choose a parbreak simply because it
is completely equivalent to the old Separator layout.
However, note that when importing old documents, the old Separator
layout has still to be converted to a parbreak separator, otherwise
the output might be changed.
I did not think of it this way but, yes, this would be a convenient
solution. The main advantage, I find, is the overall consistency in
the chosen solution, in particular with Alt+M P.
Guillaume
