On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:51:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andre> I think LFUN_INSET_TOGGLE toggles the inset to the right if > Andre> there is one or the inset containing the current cursor if > Andre> there is no inset to the right. > > Andre> Which, of course, are two different things and probablyu should > Andre> be split up into two LFUNs. > > Why? This seems like an useful thing to do as a key binding (why have > to memorize two bindings to do two very related things?)
Think of 'scripting' using the lyx server. The result of LFUN_INSET_TOGGLE is unpredictable right know unless you have a very precise knowledge of what is in your document. Note that I don't have a problem with 'high level' lfuns along the lines of LFUN_NEXT_INSET_TOGGLE LFUN_PARENT_INSET_TOGGLE LFUN_NEXT_OR_PARENT_INSET_TOGGLE and binding C-I to the latter. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
