On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:23:27AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:07:05AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > >>>>> "Enrico" == Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Enrico> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:37:48PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes > > Enrico> wrote: > > >> >>>>> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > > Bo> I can not imagine anything else you might want to experiment in > > Bo> 1.6.0. > > >> Get rid of the corners and use background instead in order to > > >> avoid those extra blank pixels? > > > > Enrico> What when insets are nested? Are you proposing to use a > > Enrico> different colour for each nested inset? Nah... > > > > Only change the color of the deepest inset. > > So, there would be no difference in simply showing the corners > of the deepest inset. > > > Enrico> What about my suggestion in the other thread? > > > > I'd have to install texmacs to understand it. > > You don't need to. Simply draw the corners of the active inset > without reserving space for them.
I tried that a while ago and this is no good as the corners cover part of the content, especially if you have a small font. > If you are leaving an inset using > arrow left or right and this inset is nested in another inset, > show the corners of the new inset but don't move the cursor. > When leaving an inset with arrow left/right, you actually move the > cursor only if there is no containing inset. Even if the cursor > is not moved, it logically belongs to an inset or another. Which > one you can tell by looking at the status line. Status line is good for exact information, but when entering a complex formula one does not want to look on the formula, at the status line, at the formula, at the status line etc. Andre'
