So, which one of the suggestions should I implement?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Ronen Abravanel <ron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are only few such commands, the 1st options seems best.
> If there are many, the last..
>
> Ronen
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> <lasgout...@lyx.org>wrote:
>
>> Le 29/04/2012 14:13, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
>>
>> I think it is a bug. I would vote for disabling the LFUN when the
>>> languages are the same. This will make it possible for the reporter to
>>> define: "command-alternatives language hebrew; language english" to
>>> toggle.
>>>
>>> I especially object to introduce a difference in behaviour based on the
>>> fact whether there is a selection or not. I would not expect something
>>> different to happen.
>>>
>>
>> I think these lfuns have two faces: interactive and API.
>> * as an API, I would expect to be able to set language to "french" and
>> not care about what the language was before that
>> * as an interactive function, toggling between the given value and the
>> default is very desirable and fits what is done by other font-changing
>> functions.
>>
>> We probably need to offer the two possibilities, either by
>> * two sets of lfuns language/language-set, font-emph/font-emph-set
>> * an optional argument "set"
>> * a prefix command "notoggle" ("notoggle language french")
>>
>> Of course, a way that preserves the preexisting semantics of lfuns would
>> be best.
>>
>> Similarly, having the possibility to have "layout" toggle between the
>> given layout and standard layout could be useful for toolbars.
>>
>> JMarc
>>
>
>
