From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: org-pop-mode Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:57:21 -0400 Message-ID: <68cc7a92-c382-3eb1-9417-9d0ac563d64a@kli.org> References: <7d38c66d-6ea5-ff8f-ee39-142c8dbdcd18@kli.org> <87blou171h.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jEeoe-0007V0-RM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:57:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEeoc-0007tx-I8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:57:24 -0400 Received: from pi.meson.org ([96.56.207.26]:53544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEeoc-0007gj-DV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:57:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87blou171h.fsf@localhost> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Ihor Radchenko , org-mode mailing list On 3/18/20 3:00 AM, Ihor Radchenko wrote: >> Any feedback? > >From the first glance it does not look too different from inline > headings. Could you highlight the difference? > > Best, > Ihor Well, it's true there is similarity.=C2=A0 I even found in my notes where= I=20 noticed inline tasks and their similarity, but all I wrote there was=20 "but mine is different," so maybe that isn't so helpful.=C2=A0 I have not= =20 used inline tasks, and was only barely familiar with them (I did know=20 they existed, though), so that is my excuse for having invented my own=20 wheel. In terms of differences, let's see: inline tasks are, from a strict outline point-of-view, a zillion levels=20 down (approximately), which makes them indent waaaay over if you're=20 using org-indent-mode.=C2=A0 My org-pop is the "normal," expected single=20 level down. inline tasks mark the end of the task with a special header at the same=20 level as the task.=C2=A0 Org-pop marks the end of the digression with a=20 special header at the same level as the "base" (the surrounding text).=C2= =A0=20 Your call as to what makes better sense. inline tasks are well-integrated and worked deep into the innards of=20 org-mode, to the point that it seems from looking at code that they=20 cause something of a headache to developers with their exceptional=20 behavior.=C2=A0 On the plus side, that means that many/most packages will= Do=20 the Right Thing in the face of inline tasks.=C2=A0 My org-pop is new and=20 non-standard, with hacks to make a few key things work right with it,=20 but doesn't have the support of... well, anything else.=C2=A0 I'm pretty = sure=20 exporting works well with inline tasks, but currently org-pop has no=20 special tweaks for it (I'm not even sure what they should be).=C2=A0 This= is=20 a reason to stick with inline tasks. Both approaches sinfully break the underlying outline-mode structure,=20 which explicitly forbids exactly what we're trying to accomplish with=20 them.=C2=A0 Inline tasks have (way) more seniority and support and indulg= ence=20 for doing so, though. I haven't experimented much with inline tasks as regards the two or=20 three behaviors that I actually cared enough about to write org-pop;=20 have to see if they do something like I would have wanted. Thanks! ~mark