From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl Maihofer Subject: Re: Lists handling Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:08:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20101128210810.11245oaxpb4k74gs@webmail.df.eu> References: <20101126191600.17972vn4jdlkdm68@webmail.df.eu> <28320_1290815524_oAQNq442028994_87wrnzhcde.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> <20101127124721.89832xmy1mxuwzwg@webmail.df.eu> <87vd3ihc0d.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> <4F78C3E7-6BC9-42EE-919E-A8B658D703BF@gmail.com> <14003_1290970935_oASJ2FXi018046_87zkst5l1u.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57015 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMnXi-0008Ap-2c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:08:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMnXg-0005Oa-P7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:08:13 -0500 Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de ([80.67.31.40]:35440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMnXg-0005OT-F6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:08:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <14003_1290970935_oASJ2FXi018046_87zkst5l1u.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric S Fraga Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Nicolas Goaziou , Carsten Dominik Eric S Fraga schrieb: > Well, my immediate reaction was to jump in and say that this (pt 4) is > exactly when I most need inline tasks! My typical use case is taking > minutes at a meeting and assigning actions to individuals: inline tasks > are perfect for this. > > However, on reflection, obviously a simple nested single item list would > do the job just fine *if* we could assign TODO actions to list > items... *but* we cannot unfortunately. > > So, I'm back to needing to use inline tasks or putting in a request for > taskable list items... Seems as if I'm not alone. :-) 1) I understand that inline tasks withhin lists are not the perfect solution. They break the list visually because they live in column 1. So if you do not need to define a real task but just write a comment, a drawer should be the better solution. ,---- | - Item 1 | - Item 1a | :COMMENT: | This is a comment. | :END: | - Item 1b | - Item 2 | - Item 3 `---- 2) Another topic is the need of real tasks withhin lists. And I think that this depends on how you use Org. If you use Org just to write down thoughts using headings, you can define tasks for any item. ,---- | * Text | * Text | ** Text | ** TODO Text | * Text `---- But if you have more complex documents that have different headings and you'd like to have a list view for your structured thoughts, you may prefer lists. And when these lists get larger, the need to define list items as tasks gets more important. Since Org is based on a outline structure of items beginning with a star, it may be difficult to realise the possibility to mark list items as tasks!? ,---- | - Item 1 | - Item 1a | - TODO Item 1b | - Item 3 `---- So inline tasks may be a work around. My first guess was something like that: ,---- | - Item 1 | - Item 1a | *************** TODO Inline Task | Here is text. | *************** END | - Item 1b | - Item 2 | - Item 3 `---- If that is difficult to implement and drawers are a appropriate way to mark text to belong to a list item, what about using inline tasks withhin such a drawer? ,---- | - Item 1 | - Item 1a | :TASK: | *************** TODO Inline Task | Here is text. | *************** END | :END: | - Item 1b | - Item 2 | - Item 3 `---- The best solution seems to be allowing list items to get a TODO-state. But I think this is too complicated to implement? Regards, Karl