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 <skost...@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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
