On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:30:20AM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > For formulas, I want very fine-grained control of 'where' the cursor is, > so the 2-cursor approach is useful, even if it sometimes feels like you > are pressing the left/right arrows way to often. For normal text, I think > I'd be annoyed if I had to do double 'left's just because I was crossing a > markup border.
But you'd cross markup borders less often than in math. If you can cope with that in math (i.e. 'words' of typical length 1) you should be able to handle that for phrease of lenght 10 or 20 or so as well. After all the overhead in this case is just 10% or 5% of what you accept in math. > Some ideas out of the blue: > * Have a "mode" setting that controls if movement is "course" or "fine" > * Use modifier (e.g. M-Left/M-Right) for fine grained movement in 'textEd' M-Left/Right switches virtual screens here. No good. SCNR ;-) > Mathed This would be great in mathed, unfortunately, you probably want > -idea: M-Left/M-Right to do course movement there :-( Bah.. I'm > stupid, why not change the behaviour of C-Left/C-Right.. at the > moment these keys aren't so useful in mathed anyway. Because C-Left moves the mouse pointer half a screen to the left I rarely test this feature... > > > But instead of starting a discussion on how to display insets in the > > > most comfortable way > > How about modes for controlling if markup borders (i.e. insets?) should be > shown, these could be: > * Don't show any boxes etc > * Only show box of the inset(s) that the cursor is in > * Show all boxes I think the second point is sufficient and everything else not strictly needed. > Some final thoughts: In mathEd, the 'where' is important -- is the > cursor in a subscript, or in a superscript... objects are in a strict > hierarchy. Is there a similar distiction in 'textEd'? The typical XML document structure is hierarical. So, yes. > How about a figure float? Edited at it's 'anchor point' as it is right now. Works good enough and fits into the hierarchy. No need to change. > No... that's not the same as a being in a subscript to me, since the > subscript "belongs" to something. A footnote might belong to > something though... Sure, to the word or phrase it is explaining, i.e. the 'anchor' > bah, this gets too complicated... Not really. A simple tree. 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...)
