Issue 82833 - Replace <?> with {<?>} For quotients and some other
Summary: Replace <?> with {<?>} For quotients and some other
Alias: None
Product: Math
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.3
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: michael.ruess
QA Contact: issues@sw
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Reported: 2007-10-21 15:20 UTC by liste
Modified: 2013-08-07 14:55 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description liste 2007-10-21 15:20:52 UTC
If we want to go with the window selection equation

We should know that it must be used as an operator brackets reunification
invisible so I do not have

It would be good to have the automatic insertion of brakets for the numerator
and denominator, as is done for the operator sqrt. : Replace <? > by {?} For
quotients, only '?' Highlight must be to keep ().
Comment 1 Regina Henschel 2007-10-21 18:54:37 UTC
I think, that it would be useful change. It would ease handling for those users
who come from Word, which only knows the graphical way to build formulas. And it
would not harm 'power'-users, who write directly into the command window anyway.
<?> over <?>
{<?>} over {<?>}
Comment 2 michael.ruess 2007-10-23 10:20:59 UTC
MRU->TL: this could be a really useful enhancement. Could you please have a look
how much effort this could take?
Comment 3 thomas.lange 2007-10-23 10:35:16 UTC
TL->MRU: Rather easy to do. Just a few minutes. That's why I assigned a very
similar issue (actually I think this one is just a hand made copy of that old
one) to 'requirements' years ago in order to have it quickly evaluated and granted. 
And then nothing ever happened... :-(
Do we now do this without having 'requirements' have a look at this? 
Seeing this 'problem' again I think we should do so.

But should really be done just for quotients and not generally?
Comment 4 michael.ruess 2007-10-23 10:40:22 UTC
MRU->TL: as discussed, lets change this generally, there are also many other
things where this makes sense.
Comment 5 thomas.lange 2007-10-23 10:44:24 UTC
Easy to do. Setting target to OOo 2.4.
Comment 6 thomas.lange 2007-10-24 13:52:51 UTC
TL: It turns out it is as easily to replace them in general as for specific
commands only.
Thus it seems inappropriate to replace them in general since that would also
include commands like "cos(<?>)" where there is absolute no benefit in adding
additional {} to the argument since the () from the cos already functions
similar to {}.

Thus I will change a hand select list of commands only (including the 'over').

TL->ALL: Thus if you have a specific request where the {} brackets should be
added please add it here within the next few days and then I will take care of
this issue next week.
Comment 7 thomas.lange 2007-10-31 13:27:10 UTC
Fixed in CWS tl45.

I did not change this for attributes like vec, bar, tilde, ... since I feel they
usually get applied to single variables only and thus adding {} would increase
the overhead in the formula text.

Where I added the {} are the following:
 "{<?>} over {<?>} "
 "fact {<?>} "
 "underline {<?>} "
 "overline {<?>} "
 "overstrike {<?>} "
 "phantom {<?>} "
 "size <?> {<?>} "
 "font <?> {<?>} "
 "color <?> {<?>} "
 "{<?>} overbrace {<?>} "
 "{<?>} underbrace {<?>} "
 "{<?>} wideslash {<?>} "
 "widehat {<?>} "
 "widetilde {<?>} "
 "widevec {<?>} "

Also I took the liberty that from now on even a single click on the <?> place
holder in the graphics window will select all of that text. This should add a
tiny bit more usability since those usually get replaced.
Comment 8 thomas.lange 2007-10-31 13:29:07 UTC
Adapted the summary accordingly.
Comment 9 thomas.lange 2007-11-05 12:12:57 UTC
TL->MRU: Aside from the 'color' command all of the changed commands can be found
either in the selection window or the context menu of the editing window.
Thus the only one you can't verify is the color command...
Comment 10 michael.ruess 2007-11-09 08:50:04 UTC
Verified in CWS tl45.
Comment 11 michael.ruess 2007-11-20 15:56:03 UTC
Checked this in OO 2.4 dev build 680m237.