mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Alvaro Tejero Cantero <address@hidden>]

(...)

> Notice also that the structural variants do not change the level of
> the itemization, but rather change the type of itemize (bullets,
> dashes, arrows, etc.). There is no keyboard shortcut to change
> the level of an itemize. On the other hand, you may always select
> part of an itemize and start a new itemize (level down).

This can be awkward if you forget to select also the bullet/dash/number. 
A sure way to get the desired result is to select the whole line for the 
item with C-space (several times).

The problem is that I always get an extra bonus blank item in the next 
level. May this be considered a bug?



On a different topic, I think that it might be a good idea to give a 
consistent meaning to the variant mechanism.

Examples of the current situation are:

* in the section->subsection->subsubsection ring, the meaning is 
hierarchical (up/down in hierarchy of sectional environments).

* in the enumerate->itemize ring (when you use bullets) the change is 
semantical: both are list structures, but one is ordered and the other 
is not. Also in the theorem->proposition->etc ring.

* in the dash->arrow->bullet or the roman->latin numeral ring, the 
change is in the decoration (presentational).

So it might be interesting to separate the set of variants for 
hierarchic nesting/denesting from the others. This might become 
extremely useful for the folding environments, also.


'A.