Re: [Texmacs-dev] Activation/deactivation seriously broken?

[Norbert Nemec]

Joris van der Hoeven wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:46PM +0100, Norbert Nemec wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>either I'm missing something obvious or the deactivation/activation of
>>tags in 1.0.5.11-R2 is seriously broken:
>>
>>Assume, have marked up text, say <with|color|red|whatever> somewhere in
>>my document.
>>It used to be that I could simply set the cursor behind the text, press
>><backspace> to deactivate it, edit the color to "blue" and hit <return>
>>to see the effect take place. This does not seem to work any more.
>>
>>The best I managed to do is to mark the whole mark-up and hit "M-minus"
>>to deactivate the text. However, I have no idea how to reactivate it.
>>    
>>
>
>M-minus inserts a tag which can be removed using C-return (just before
>the end of the tag).
>
This does not work for me: instead, C-return creates a tag
<script-eval|>, no matter where I type it.

> It is true, however, that we might add a simple keystroke
>for re-activation.
>  
>
It used to be that a simple <return> did the trick (like for new,
not-yet activated tags). Why was that abolished? Why doesn't the
<backspace> work any more for deactivating tags?

(Don't understand me wrong: I'm not against changes, but I like to know
whether they were intentional.)

>  
>
>>First: in this deactivated tag, TeXmacs seems to be in a different mode
>>than in a new, not-yet activated tag. Pressing <return> does not work.
>>
>>Pressing "M-plus" does not reactivate the deactivated tag but simply
>>inserts an empty <active*|> tag that has no visible effect. Same for the
>>toolbar-button "Activate". If I mark the inactive tag before pressing
>>"M-plus", I find the inactive tag enclosed by an <active*|...> tag that
>>has no visible effect.
>>
>>If this simply is a bug, then I hope it is fixed soon. Certain
>>editing-operations are currently impossible or demand a nasty
>>workaround. If the behavior is intended, then I have to say that it is
>>seriously confusing.
>>    
>>
>
>The behaviour of the "with" tag is a bit special, because it is frequent and
>most people usually don't want to manually edit the attributes.
>
>  
>
In which way "special"? It is true: it used to be that "with" tags did
not react to <backspace> like others did. But now, the <backspace> does
not work any more in general, so where is the specialty?

Ciao,
Norbert