From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastien Vauban Subject: Re: [RFC] Simplify `org-show-context' configuration Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:19:25 +0100 Message-ID: <86lhjwsxnm.fsf@example.com> References: <87lhjxh8q4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <86y4nx3py8.fsf@example.com> <87iof1vsh7.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Sebastien Vauban writes: > >> Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them >> I mean? I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be >> good to hide the ones which are not significant. Not a very sharp >> advice on this, though. > > I have no strong opinion about this, but I think it would be odd if > they were invisible. After all, this is the basic structure of the > document. Yes, that's why I'm not so pushy about it. OTOH, it's nice to hide them when you have a lot of level-1 sections -- I remember that being asked here by someone. But, once again, for me, it's not that important. >>> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if >>> point is within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for >>> example, `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on >>> a headline, since only latter will show the entry. >>> >>> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed. >>> >>> WDYT? >> >> My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know >> which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub >> sub sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections". >> >> With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage', >> `full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me: >> >> * H1 >> * H2 >> ** Sub 2 >> *** Sub sub 2 >> Text >> >> WDYT? > > I can add `ancestors' view, which would basically be `lineage' without > siblings. That'd certainly be good -- and match my current Org config. And, if I may, to be sure we are somehow "symmetrical", it'd be good to have as well: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- * H1 * H2 ** Sub 2 *** Sub sub 1 *** Sub sub 2 Text *** Sub sub 3 *** Sub sub 4 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That is "ancestors" + the siblings of the leaf entry. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban