On 22-Apr-2002 Eran Tromer wrote:
> Anyway, at least now we're in sync: the criterion is strictly visual, to
> the level of single pixels. Got it. Please allow me to try your patience
> and go back to the original example (ERT in footnote).
#:O)
> >>Cursor at beginning of footnote (right before ERT):
> >> <Down> goes outside footnote, should enter ERT
> >
> > Again you are left of the ERT inset in the last row of the footnote if
> > pressing DOWN you shouldn't go right you should navigate down!
>
> There's nothing strictly below the cursor, so by your criterion <Down>
> should do nothing. Instead, it goes up and right.
[snip the rest]
I may agree on this with you. The problem is that we cannot fix this and
it is REALLY a very special case, isn't it? The problem is that the inset
wants to go down sees there is no row below and decides to unlock itself to
permit the outerworld to handle this cursor request. A unlocked cursor as
default goes to the back of an inset.
Now in this special case you don't have a row below the inset so it just
stays there. But IMO this is the right thing to do, so you just can go
on editing from that spot on.
In your case we would have to check from the inset if the outside paragraph
(LyXText) has another row and only unlock the inset if this happens.
I'm sure then people will complain that they are on the last row editing
and have to press ESC or go to the right of the inset to be able to go on
editing, while before they had to press just "Down" and could go on editing.
>> I don't agree here to this is not a bug in my opinion and the behaviour
>> should not be changed, so as simple as that I will close the bug with a
>> WONTFIX.
>
> Uhm? I thought you admitted this one is a bug.
No not really. I didn't admit it is a bug. I only admited that depending
on who uses it, the one could have different tastes. We obiously could just
create a dummy row below so when moving down we will go there, but I guess
this is really not worthwise the time.
Hope you understand now that this is REALLY a minor annoyance in a VERY
certain situation, which, in your case, is VERY theoretical, isn't it?
Greets,
Jug
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Italienallee 13/N Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253
I-39100 Bozen Web: http://www.sad.it/~jug
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
You own a dog, but you can only feed a cat.
