<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Allow changing variable name" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134165#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Allow changing variable name" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134165">bug 134165</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:luke.kendall@gmail.com" title="Luke Kendall <luke.kendall@gmail.com>"> Luke Kendall</a> <pre>(In reply to Buovjaga from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=134165#c7">comment #7</a>) > (In reply to Luke Kendall from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=134165#c6">comment #6</a>) > > My preference, because it would be useful to be able to edit a field, would > > be to make the bug an enhancement (to provide the implied functionality). > > I guess renaming is prevented in order to protect the user from making > mistakes, shooting themselves in the foot. Let's ask UX what they think. > > There is <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - change method of creating variables in Writer's "Fields" dialogue to allow creating variables without inserting" href="show_bug.cgi?id=111888">bug 111888</a> for a variable UX overhaul I'm not sure in what way it could lead to causing the user to create errors, but even if there were, I'd hope the function could either: 1) check and adjust to use the new edited value wherever it was previously used, or 2) offer to create a new field with the new properties. In either case, if there's only a single use, I suspect no errors could be caused. But you would all know better than me about the consequences and effects.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>