Re: [Texmacs-dev] Issues about extensive changes to table editing in 1.0.6.2

[Norbert Nemec]

Felix Breuer schrieb:
> AFAICT "multi-paragraph" has become "block content". Cell->Special
>   
> Properties->Block Content will give you the choice between always/if
> hyphenated/never. The second option is the default so "block content" is
> automatically activated when you select hyphenation for a cell.
>   
OK, I understand now. However: why does "block content" need to be a
special mode at all? This is an additional concept that the TeXmacs user
has to understand.

Of course it is convenient to be able to add table rows with a simple
<enter>. Yet, it is much easier to learn that <Alt>-Arrow generally adds
rows or columns, than to understand the principle of when <enter> works
for new rows and when not.

I would suggest to set "block content" to "always" by default and maybe
even remove the option completely.

> When would you want to have block content without hyphenation? What is
> the difference between the two anyway?
>   
When would you want non-block-content at all? The only difference that I
see between block-content and non-block-content is the function of the
<enter> key. Is this worth the effort and confusion of distinguishing at
all?



>> * Cell Hyphenation does not seem to work as it used to: Previously, a
>> hyphenated cell would be limited in width to the column width (which was
>> determined by the widest un-hyphenated column, unless specified
>> otherwise.) Now, cell-hyphenation does not seem to do anything any more.
>> The attached document demonstrates this difference in rendering between
>> 1.0.6 and 1.0.6.6
>>     
>
> You have to set Table->Width->Paragraph to limit the table width.
> Hyphenation then works as expected.
>
> I do not have 1.0.6 installed right now. Does this change remove the
> difference in rendering?
>   
True, with this option set, the file renders identical in both versions.
However, having a small table that is not supposed to span the whole
paragraph, the difference is there.

>
> All in all, I think the table UI has improved significantly, but there
> are still quite a few subtleties to master, before you achieve precisely
> the layout you want.
>   
Exactly what I said!