Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz
<andre.poenitz-H0bhvm5RIPI+B2oLq8eQJv4efur1V5z/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Insets are straightforward to implement. Font ranges are not.
I recently had a look at our coding rules. "KISS" was and still is
the first item...
Yes, but it should not dictqte the UI (am I repeating myself?)
But _I_ happen to like clear threshold between different things, the
kind of threshold is naturally achieved by insets. So why, as a user, do
I have to suffer your way of typing? This goes the other way around
obviously. With insets at least we can offer my preferred UI and we can
get close to your preferred UI. With font based implementation we can
only achieve your preferred UI; my preferred UI will be very complicated
to implement.
No, not at all. If the main problem with character styles is the lack of
clear, visible boundaries, I think that should be near-trivial to solve
with character styles.
So, to me, the choice is clear.
Abdel.
Besides (getting back to KISS), KISS is where I'm coming from as well.
But I think that KISS applies first of all to the concepts, and if the
concepts are simple (and clear!) then it's much easier for the code to
follow suit. And having a concept (like insets) which encompasses more
and more things is not simple, IMO, and will lead to code that becomes
more and more complicated. Not necessarily the code of insets themselves
(although that too will suffer in the long run, IMO), but more
importantly also the interactions between different parts of the code.
Now we're talking about making changes in the cursor movement code, to
deal with more and more cases, in order to make charstyles-as-insets
more intuitive. Things become more and more interdependent, and *that's*
complexity. And the reason for the interdependence is the fact that the
concepts are not correct.
