Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: So this patch would be OK for trunk and branch? Yes. Note, however, the typo below. Jürgen Index: src/paragraph_funcs.h === --- src/paragraph_funcs.h   (révision 20407) +++

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > So this patch would be OK for trunk and branch? Yes. Note, however, the typo below. Jürgen > Index: src/paragraph_funcs.h > === > --- src/paragraph_funcs.h   (révision 20407) > +++

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: Actually, it could be renamed to something like break-paragraph-special, or an 'inverse' option could be added to break-paragraph. Yes, the current name is certainly misleading. I would prefer to merge the two lfuns and add an option (I don't

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Ideas include: break-paragraph special break-paragraph inverse break-paragraph alt break-paragraph 1 So, what name shall I give to this thing? From these, inverse is surely the least confusing one. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, what name shall I give to this thing? From these, inverse is surely the least confusing one. So this patch would be OK for trunk and branch? JMarc svndiff src lib/bind Index: src/LyXAction.cpp

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: >> Actually, it could be renamed to something like >> break-paragraph-special, or an 'inverse' option could be added to >> break-paragraph. > > Yes, the current name is certainly misleading. > I would prefer to merge the two lfuns and add an option

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Ideas include: > > break-paragraph special > break-paragraph inverse > break-paragraph alt > break-paragraph 1 > > So, what name shall I give to this thing? >From these, inverse is surely the least confusing one. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So, what name shall I give to this thing? > > From these, inverse is surely the least confusing one. So this patch would be OK for trunk and branch? JMarc svndiff src lib/bind Index: src/LyXAction.cpp

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: The behaviour of M-Return is the exact symmetry of what Return would do: I see. I'm fine with that (though I still prefer the old behaviour, i.e. swap Return and M-Return). Could you be more precise? I do not think

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Could you be more precise? I do not think the behaviour of Return has been changed recently. What would you like to see? I'm referring to the old behaviour where M-return was necessary to preserve the nesting level. I'm not sure I like this. Why should we double

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Could you be more precise? I do not think the behaviour of Return has been changed recently. What would you like to see? I'm referring to the old behaviour where M-return was necessary to preserve the nesting level.

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Bu currently with environments (itemize, etc.) both return and M-return keep the nesting level. Yes (which is bad). How do you go to a lower level usually? M-S-leftarrow. Which is less fun than pressing Return

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Bu currently with environments (itemize, etc.) both return and M-return keep the nesting level. Yes (which is bad). How do you go to a lower level usually? M-S-leftarrow. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Which is less fun than pressing Return repeatedly, you'll admit :) Well, let's say you get used to it ... So, what would be your preferred behaviour? Let's forget about my (personal) preferred behaviour (I am obviously a minority here). I think your patch is a

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> The behaviour of M-Return is the exact symmetry of what Return would >> do: > > I see. I'm fine with that (though I still prefer the old behaviour, i.e. swap > Return and M-Return). Could you be more precise? I do

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Could you be more precise? I do not think the behaviour of Return has > been changed recently. What would you like to see? I'm referring to the old behaviour where M-return was necessary to preserve the nesting level. > > I'm not sure I like this. Why should we

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Could you be more precise? I do not think the behaviour of Return has >> been changed recently. What would you like to see? > > I'm referring to the old behaviour where M-return was necessary to preserve > the

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Bu currently with environments (itemize, etc.) both return and >> M-return keep the nesting level. > > Yes (which is bad). > >> How do you go to a lower level usually? > > M-S-. Which is less fun than pressing

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Bu currently with environments (itemize, etc.) both return and > M-return keep the nesting level. Yes (which is bad). > How do you go to a lower level usually? M-S-. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Which is less fun than pressing Return repeatedly, you'll admit :) Well, let's say you get used to it ... > So, what would be your preferred behaviour? Let's forget about my (personal) preferred behaviour (I am obviously a minority here). I think your patch is a

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: The behaviour of M-Return is the exact symmetry of what Return would do: I see. I'm fine with that (though I still prefer the old behaviour, i.e. swap Return and M-Return). Actually, it could be renamed to something like break-paragraph-special, or an 'inverse'

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > The behaviour of M-Return is the exact symmetry of what Return would > do: I see. I'm fine with that (though I still prefer the old behaviour, i.e. swap Return and M-Return). > Actually, it could be renamed to something like > break-paragraph-special, or an

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return (was Re: UserGuide-test hints and questions, 2)

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Here is a patch that implements proper functionning of M-Return (at least as I see it: like Return, but inverting role of environment and non-environment). I'd be interested to have some feedback on it. This is potentially for trunk and branch. Could you describe

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Here is a patch that implements proper functionning of M-Return (at least as I see it: like Return, but inverting role of environment and non-environment). I'd be interested to have some feedback on it. This is

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return (was Re: UserGuide-test hints and questions, 2)

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Here is a patch that implements proper functionning of M-Return (at > least as I see it: like Return, but inverting role of environment and > non-environment). I'd be interested to have some feedback on it. This > is potentially for trunk and branch. Could you

Re: [PATCH] fix M-Return

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Here is a patch that implements proper functionning of M-Return (at >> least as I see it: like Return, but inverting role of environment and >> non-environment). I'd be interested to have some feedback on it. This >>

[PATCH] fix M-Return (was Re: UserGuide-test hints and questions, 2)

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: M-Return is supposed to be do for commands what Return would do for Environments and do for environments what Return would do for commands. However, I see now that it does not do anything interesting for enumerations. I'll have to double check that. Here is a

[PATCH] fix M-Return (was Re: UserGuide-test hints and questions, 2)

> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: >> M-Return is supposed to be do for commands what Return would do for >> Environments and do for environments what Return would do for >> commands. >> >> However, I see now that it does not do anything interesting for >> enumerations. I'll have to double check