Le 22/08/2012 11:06, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Do you really think that 'locally visible' and especially 'locally
hidden' have real use cases, or are they just added for the sake of
being complete? I would think that all/visible/hidden is good enough.
What do you mean by "visible" here? Are you referring to what I am calling
"globally visible"?
Yes.
Agreed on both points. Do you think that supporting all/gVisible/gHidden (which
is what I interpret your suggestion above as) would need definitions or would
the names be intuitive? I guess "a buffer is visible if it is viewable in an open
view"
would be enough. I am a little hesitant to avoid using "locally" and "globally"
because otherwise the definition sounds like "a buffer is visible if it is
visible in a view" which is confusing and incorrect.
I would revert the definition: "a buffer is hidden if it is internally
opened in LyX, but not visible in any window" (rewritten into proper
English)
To make things really simple, what if only "visible" were supported or only
"all"? Do you think a user would want to apply LFUNs to only hidden documents?
Maybe to close them or to make them visible.
Now my first thought is to do one of the following:
(1) only support "visible" (globally visible)
(2) only support "all"
(3) support both "visible" and "all".
I will need to think about this more. What do you think?
Maybe you should keep visible/hidden/all, if only for symmetry.
BTW, an idea for a next patch: in the document list of the View menu,
files opened in another window appear as hidden. This is wrong of
course. They should probably be in a different submenu "other windows".
However, in the 'no tabs' mac scenario, this does not make sense at all,
since all files should be displayed and selecting one with the view menu
should just give focus to the proper window.
Supporting both tabs and multiple windows is a UX nightmare in my opinion.
JMarc
