Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread mike . ressler
On 12 Dec 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Plus, it excludes one set of default bindings (e.g. Emacs) in favor of > | another (e.g. CUA). We need to document *all* bindings, and the place > | for that is in the Reference Manual. > > I must admit that

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "John" == John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 01:33:55PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes John> wrote: >> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> | On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: | | > Gentlemen, | > | > >> I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Ma

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:39:05PM -0500, Amir Karger wrote: | > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 05:27:05PM +0900, Miyata Shigeru wrote: | > > Why don't you write a perl script to parse users' lyxrc, preference, ui and | > > bind files, and to update UserGuide.lyx

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread John Weiss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:22:12PM -0800, Mike Ressler wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on updating the keyboard shortcuts in the docs (starting with > the User Guide). Given that I'm former editor-in-chief of the LyX Documentation Effort and remain its floating spiritual guide, I think it's time I

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread John Weiss
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:39:05PM -0500, Amir Karger wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 05:27:05PM +0900, Miyata Shigeru wrote: > > Why don't you write a perl script to parse users' lyxrc, preference, ui and > > bind files, and to update UserGuide.lyx? > > But then, each user would need a local co

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-12 Thread John Weiss
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 01:33:55PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: > | > | > Gentlemen, > | > > | > I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little > | > cumbersome to use: [snip

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-06 Thread Allan Rae
On 4 Dec 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: > | > | > Gentlemen, > | > > | > I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little > | > cumbersome to use: > | > > | > Eg, type in the minib

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | Lars> Yes, that's what I had in mind originally. And lyxfuncs allowed | Lars> for | this inset should be marked explic

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Lars> Yes, that's what I had in mind originally. And lyxfuncs allowed Lars> for | this inset should be marked explicitely in LyXAction. Lars> Hmmm... rather mark all functions

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Yes, that's what I had in mind originally. And lyxfuncs allowed for | this inset should be marked explicitely in LyXAction. Hmmm... rather mark all functions that outputs something... | So, would you be ready to accept that in 1.1.6? I would h

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lars> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gentlemen, | | I've Lars> written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a Lars> little | cumbersome to use: | | Eg, type in the minibuffer: | | Lars> shortcut-insert line-e

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Ummm... | | Aren't you wanting three different insets for your three different types of | info. My quick (and fully working) hack does exactly what your | | describe-function-binding line-end -> "C-e" | | would do. I guess that you could use the on

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Angus Leeming
Ummm... Aren't you wanting three different insets for your three different types of info. My quick (and fully working) hack does exactly what your describe-function-binding line-end -> "C-e" would do. I guess that you could use the one inset, but don't see why. Angus On Monday 04 December

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma - what I will try

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | With regards the UserGuide, however, we must bear in mind that having a | list of keybindings indexed by the key combinations is not useful. Why is this so? | I will admit here that all of the above reflects the personal opinions of | a cua.bind user

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: | | > Gentlemen, | > | > I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little | > cumbersome to use: | > | > Eg, type in the minibuffer: | > | > shortcut-insert line-end | > | > And a little

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gentlemen, | | I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little | cumbersome to use: | | Eg, type in the minibuffer: | | shortcut-insert line-end But this is not what we really want... we want an inset that shows the output o

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Allan Rae
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: > Gentlemen, > > I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little > cumbersome to use: > > Eg, type in the minibuffer: > > shortcut-insert line-end > > And a little button appears in the text containing the immortal [C-e]. > >

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma - what I will try

2000-12-01 Thread Lior Silberman
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Amir Karger wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 08:49:42AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I will modify the docs so that only the menu bindings (minibuffer > > commands) are listed in the text. Appropriate verbiage will be added to > > the UG and perhaps the Introducti

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma - what I will try

2000-12-01 Thread mike . ressler
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Amir Karger wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 08:49:42AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I will modify the docs so that only the menu bindings (minibuffer > > commands) are listed in the text. Appropriate verbiage will be added to [ ...] > > > > Fair enough? > > No! > > I

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Angus Leeming
Gentlemen, I've written the inset proposed by Jean-Marc. Currently, it's a little cumbersome to use: Eg, type in the minibuffer: shortcut-insert line-end And a little button appears in the text containing the immortal [C-e]. It isn't quite there yet (no Read(), Write(), Latex() functions, s

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Amir Karger
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 05:27:05PM +0900, Miyata Shigeru wrote: > Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Otherwise, you'd have to write it so that it automatically displayed what > > the person's personal bindings were at that time, or something. > > Why don't you write a perl script to pa

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma - what I will try

2000-12-01 Thread Amir Karger
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 08:49:42AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I will modify the docs so that only the menu bindings (minibuffer > commands) are listed in the text. Appropriate verbiage will be added to > the UG and perhaps the Introduction to explain the situation. Then I will > update t

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma - what I will try

2000-12-01 Thread mike . ressler
Hello all, I seem to have generated some discussion - good. On 1 Dec 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > "Garst R. Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Allan Rae wrote: > | > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Mike Ressler wrote: > | > > Given that CUA is the default, and assuming that an overwhelming majori

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Lars> Then we could have an inset which contains the value of a Lars> lyxfunc | (which would work only with lyxfuncs marked as Lars> "embedable"). Then the | documentation woul

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Then we could have an inset which contains the value of a lyxfunc | (which would work only with lyxfuncs marked as "embedable"). Then the | documentation would always contain up to date shortcuts whatever the | user did. I am not sure this is re

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Miyata" == Miyata Shigeru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Miyata> Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Otherwise, you'd have to write it so that it automatically >> displayed what the person's personal bindings were at that time, or >> something. Miyata> Why don't you write a perl script

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
"Garst R. Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Allan Rae wrote: | > | > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Mike Ressler wrote: | > | > > Given that CUA is the default, and assuming that an overwhelming majority | > > use that, the question is how to I document such things without being | > > ridiculous? Do I

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Agreed - this is why I thought I'd ask. If no one feels strongly about the | emacs bindings (other than me), then it's appropriate to leave them | out. Hey! Lgb

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-12-01 Thread Miyata Shigeru
Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Otherwise, you'd have to write it so that it automatically displayed what > the person's personal bindings were at that time, or something. Why don't you write a perl script to parse users' lyxrc, preference, ui and bind files, and to update UserGuide.lyx

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread Amir Karger
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:03:28PM -0400, Garst R. Reese wrote: > How about chapters or separate docs > Keyboard shortcuts CUA > Keyboard shortcuts Emacs > Personally I just look at the bind file. > Having the shortcuts scattered through the docs is of absolutely no use. > Many are now in the pull

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread Garst R. Reese
Allan Rae wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Mike Ressler wrote: > > > Given that CUA is the default, and assuming that an overwhelming majority > > use that, the question is how to I document such things without being > > ridiculous? Do I just document CUA and tell Emacs users to go figure it > >

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread Allan Rae
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Mike Ressler wrote: > Given that CUA is the default, and assuming that an overwhelming majority > use that, the question is how to I document such things without being > ridiculous? Do I just document CUA and tell Emacs users to go figure it > out themselves? (e.g. "to cut hi

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread mike . ressler
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Amir Karger wrote: > I think the docs have to be written assuming you've got the default binding. > Otherwise, you'd have to write it so that it automatically displayed what > the person's personal bindings were at that time, or something. That would actually be really cool!

Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread Amir Karger
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:22:12PM -0800, Mike Ressler wrote: > > Given that CUA is the default, and assuming that an overwhelming majority > use that, the question is how to I document such things without being > ridiculous? Do I just document CUA and tell Emacs users to go figure it > out thems

Key-binding documentation dilemma

2000-11-30 Thread Mike Ressler
Hi, I'm working on updating the keyboard shortcuts in the docs (starting with the User Guide). It's immediately obvious that I'm going to get myself into a CUA vs Emacs binding battle. Having used Emacs for about 16 years, guess which one I prefer ... Given that CUA is the default, and assuming