From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mead Subject: Re: full production use of org-mode: time to say thanks again! Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:15:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87fwwdq8ts.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r5fzk5j5.wl%ucecesf@ucl.ac.uk> <20EA118D-E909-47F4-AEF8-8B1B929F5601@gmail.com> <87eibzfgia.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> <87bp720vwy.wl%ucecesf@ucl.ac.uk> <871v7xz182.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> <664F7423-EE5E-40E8-B6B3-CE2EEB4E08BC@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56575 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P5GZT-0000iB-Kc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:29:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5GLy-0004zY-Iq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:15:39 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:48704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5GLy-0004zP-DF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:15:38 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P5GLv-00024t-Cw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:15:35 +0200 Received: from cpc1-rdng14-0-0-cust845.15-3.cable.virginmedia.com ([82.0.203.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:15:35 +0200 Received: from paul.d.mead by cpc1-rdng14-0-0-cust845.15-3.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:15:35 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Carsten Dominik writes: > 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 > - Maybe I should treat inline tasks with proper END > statement as a drawer and fold it? Comments? I was thinking the other day that this would be a useful change - I was wondering why it didn't work the same as other similar structures, so a vote from me for this change. Paul