On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:53:04PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > With the ERT inset (in textEd) for instance, this is not really a problem > since you have the visual "barrier" (box) that you pass through.
Well, the idea of all-boxes is to have that barrier for each change. > > Because C-Left moves the mouse pointer half a screen to the left I > > rarely test this feature... > > You need to fix your window manager? SCNR Indeed. Save a few small changes I use the same configuration as 14 years ago. > Seriously, what do you mean? I mean 'I don't know what Ctrl-Left is doing as this key sequence is handled by my window manager so LyX never sees it. M-x word-backward/forward work fine, though. > Is it broken in 1.4? (in 1.3 it moves to the > left/right-most position inside the math-inset IIRC) 1.4 too. > > I think the second point is sufficient and everything else not strictly > > needed. > > For text editing, I'm pretty sure I'd like a mode without any boxes... Even without the once the cursor is in? > it's annoying as it is with ERT boxes, index boxes etc, that clutter the > screen and takes away my focus from the actual text content. It could be made less intrusive like the pink corners of the math boxes (instead of a 'solid' box...) > Have you used word and NOT been irritated by the squiggly lines below > words? Rarely. and yes, I find this confusing. > Note: Isn't it overkill drawing something that's emphasized using a box > AND (e.g.) italics? We don't want to flood the user with visual info. Interesting point. Hm, maybe. Maybe not, though... > > > 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. > > Sorry, I don't buy that argument. You are talking about data structures > intended to be machine readable, whereas I am talking about how we (our > brain) thinks about text. It helps to adjust your way of thinking a bit to the way the machine handles stuff. This enables you to work with the machine, not against it... 'Documents are trees' is not a bad mode of thought IMO. > In my mind, text is more of a linear (sequential) object than > something with the tree structure of a formula. This holds for a novel ore such, but even the random science paper has structure. And, btw, if you only have flat text you'll never see a box even with all-boxes. Andr'e
