From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jorge.alfaro-murillo@yale.edu (Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo) Subject: Re: Emulating list functionality from traditional GUI editors Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:44:44 -0500 Message-ID: <87fvcmowkj.fsf@yale.edu> References: <878uieqeej.fsf@yale.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39501) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xz8mM-0005Av-Gx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:48:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xz8mG-0007dq-E5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:47:58 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xz8mG-0007dj-6w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:47:52 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xz8mE-0000dA-E8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:47:50 +0100 Received: from nat-130-132-173-32.central.yale.edu ([130.132.173.32]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:47:50 +0100 Received: from jorge.alfaro-murillo by nat-130-132-173-32.central.yale.edu with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:47:50 +0100 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Calvin Young writes: > ;; Starting with this setup: > > - one - two + a[CURSOR_HERE] > > ;; Hitting should produce: > > - one - two + a + [CURSOR_HERE] > > ;; Hitting again would then produce: > > - one - two + a - [CURSOR_HERE] > > ;; And hitting one last time would produce: > > - one - two + a > > [CURSOR_HERE] I think there is a confusion here, my understanding is that org separates sublists by indentation so if you have: - a + b[CURSOR] and hit M- it should correct to: - a - b - [CURSOR] It is different if you have: - a + b[CURSOR] or - a - b[CURSOR] or 1. a - b[CURSOR] 2. c etc > I know we can already achieve this with some combination of > M-, , and M-S-, but this behavior has 2 > distinct advantages: > > 1. The user only needs to remember one key to cycle between all > of these actions, rather than 3 key combinations. But the problem is that you lose the functionality of to exit the list. I want to have to finish a line and to finish a paragraph like I am used everywhere else. > 2. This behavior is more consistent with the bulleting behavior > in other editors We shouldn't aim to imitate other much inferior editors ;-) > , which could make it feel more intuitive for new org-mode > users. [...] > Yes, but for the reasons mentioned above, it'd be nice if we > could use the to outdent a new list entry as well. I disagree, and S- for indenting is much more friendly than , most modes in emacs behave like that. A new user just has to understand that sublists are separated by indentation, and learn that M- is for lists, and M-S- is for check boxes. > Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo says: >> I guess you could remap to a function that checks >> if you are at the beginning of the list and when that is true >> it does what you want, otherwise it just calls >> `delete-backward-char'. But generally I would do C-a C-k >> , just two more keystrokes. > Makes sense. This is an easy function to write — just wanted to > make sure there wasn't something that already does this > out-of-the-box. It should save around half a second per use, so if you use it five times a day you have about 1 hour to write it... minus the time it takes you to read this: http://xkcd.com/1205/ =) > In general, I *believe* a lot of folks use lists and checkboxs > in similar ways. I certainly do, and I frequently accidentally > hit M- while editing a checkbox when I really intend to > insert a new checkbox entry. As a result, it seems desirable to > create an interface that treats them more similarly (e.g., using > a single keypress to auto-insert a new entry). > > If this doesn't exist yet, I'd be happy to roll it myself. But > it'd be nice to avoid re-inventing the wheel here if possible :) Maybe, but you would lose the ability to have mixed check boxes and items lists. But you are right, it might be a nice configuration to allow M- to give you another item with check box if you are already in one (and then M-S- gives you a plain list item). But it might be even more confusing for a new user as to why the behavior is not consistent with M-, so probably it shouldn't be default. Best, -- Jorge.