Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-07 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Well, the first change is straight forward, Right. See attached patch. but I do not know what is the right semantics to use for the second problem. Me neither. Jürgen Index: src/Text3.cpp === ---

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-07 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Well, the first change is straight forward, Right. See attached patch. > but I do not know what is > the right semantics to use for the second problem. Me neither. Jürgen Index: src/Text3.cpp ===

[patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
I finally got too annoyed by the current behaviour when inserting a collapsable over a selection. As it is now, when you select some paragraphs from an itemize list and insert a branch, the first paragraph is reset to Standard, and the branch itself is in an itemize list. The new approach is to

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:46:29 + José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 06 March 2008 10:21:42 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: OK? +1 Jürgen Yes, what took so long to backport it? Ah... that would have been my job :-( - Martin

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread José Matos
On Thursday 06 March 2008 10:21:42 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: OK? +1 Jürgen -- José Abílio

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I finally got too annoyed by the current behaviour when inserting a collapsable over a selection. You will get a medal for this. The new approach is to keep the layout of the inner first paragraph and reset the outer paragraph to Standard, if

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: There is still one case that might matter: when one selects the whole contents of one Itemize paragraph, your code does not trigger, and I think it should. Yes. The right test is maybe to check whether the enclosing inset is alone in its paragraph. Probably,

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see. The good news is that this was not introduced by my change. I'll have a look at both issues, if you do not beat me to it. Well, the first change is straight forward, but I do not know what is the right semantics to use for the second

[patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
I finally got too annoyed by the current behaviour when inserting a collapsable over a selection. As it is now, when you select some paragraphs from an itemize list and insert a branch, the first paragraph is reset to Standard, and the branch itself is in an itemize list. The new approach is to

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:46:29 + José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 06 March 2008 10:21:42 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > > OK? > > +1 > > > Jürgen Yes, what took so long to backport it? Ah... that would have been my job :-( - Martin

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread José Matos
On Thursday 06 March 2008 10:21:42 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > OK? +1 > Jürgen -- José Abílio

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I finally got too annoyed by the current behaviour when inserting a > collapsable over a selection. You will get a medal for this. > The new approach is to keep the layout of the inner first paragraph > and reset the outer paragraph to

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Juergen Spitzmueller
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > There is still one case that might matter: when one selects the whole > contents of one Itemize paragraph, your code does not trigger, and I > think it should. Yes. > The right test is maybe to check whether the > enclosing inset is alone in its paragraph.

Re: [patch BRANCH] insertInset

2008-03-06 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see. The "good" news is that this was not introduced by my change. I'll > have a look at both issues, if you do not beat me to it. Well, the first change is straight forward, but I do not know what is the right semantics to use for the second