From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Abrahamsen Subject: Re: Alternatives to inlinetasks? [was: Problems created by inlinetasks in agenda views] Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:46 -0700 Message-ID: <87fu3klhjp.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <23248.48530.817172.917300@frac.u-strasbg.fr> <87in8ricbd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <23261.58554.814734.521862@frac.u-strasbg.fr> <87sh7m0zsd.fsf@gmail.com> <871sf5pr4t.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bme9obit.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60073) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fB0Qm-00061B-0j for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fB0Qi-0006sg-2F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:36 -0400 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=55357 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fB0Qh-0006rc-Qp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:31 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fB0OY-0005bK-Lq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:02:18 +0200 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@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Kaushal Modi writes: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:35 PM Eric Abrahamsen > wrote: > > Would there be any consideration for an inline syntax that looks > more > like a link? Personally, when I want inline TODOs, I want them > because > there's a particular chunk of text that I need to do something > with. > What about something that looks like: > > In 2005 there were approximately [[TODO: Verify this; SCHEDULED: > ; :statistics:][4,500]] Confucius Institutes in > operation > worldwide. > > How would you distinguish between regular links and such inline TODO's > when the "link" portion is hidden? I guess I wouldn't, personally, I'd just use the agenda to interact with the TODOs. But there could be a separate option allowing users to control the visibility of inline TODOs independently. I dunno, I was just throwing this out there :) > Would footnotes serve better? (I'm not a consumer of inline todos > (yet?) so consider this suggestion with a grain of salt :)) That's not a bad idea either! I do like links' ability to connect to a specific run of text, but this would also work. Eric