On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:04:15 +0200, Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > Could you try the following patch and tell me if it fixes your issue?
> 
> A quick test shows that things seem to work well in inlinetasks which
> are properly ended with an END line.
> 
> There is also a dirty form of inline tasks which allows
> only a planning line (SCHEDULED etc) and one or several
> drawers directly after the task line, and then no
> END line is necessary.  But I guess it is fair
> to force the END line if you do want to have
> proper indentation.

That requirement would seem to make sense.

> Eric Fraga, have you tested the patch yet?  Please do
> so when you wake up from your two-week sleep, so that
> we can check this in.

I have tested it and it seems to work fine.  I've not seen anything
major break but I haven't done a thorough test.

> I am seeing now two things that should be added:
> 
>   - M-RET after inline tasks should ignore the inline task
>     and make a new entry with normal indentation

Yes, that would be nice especially as it takes quite a few TABs to get
back to a proper level and sometimes I cannot tell what that level
should have been...  Actually, it might be nice if the TAB immediately
after a M-RET would go back to the next previously used level in the
hierarchy?  Although this might be tricky...

>   - Maybe I should treat inline tasks with proper END
>     statement as a drawer and fold it?  Comments?

Could be useful but it's not critical for me: I don't tend to put too
much text between the start and end of inline tasks so it's not too
intrusive.

Thanks to both you and Nicolas,
eric