Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

(...)

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.

---

• Change lists level., aasdelat, 11/25/2004
  • Re: [TeXmacs] Change lists level., Javier Arántegui, 11/25/2004
  • Re: [TeXmacs] Change lists level., Joris van der Hoeven, 11/25/2004
    • Re: [TeXmacs] Change lists level., Alvaro Tejero Cantero, 11/25/2004
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: Change lists level., aasdelat, 11/29/2004

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.