From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Problems created by inlinetasks in agenda views Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:08:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87in8ricbd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <23248.48530.817172.917300@frac.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55134) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f82vg-0003O9-9V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:08:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f82vc-0004pK-7D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:08:16 -0400 Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.193]:47957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f82vb-0004oZ-Vz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:08:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <23248.48530.817172.917300@frac.u-strasbg.fr> (Alain Cochard's message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:24:18 +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: Alain.Cochard@unistra.fr Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Alain.Cochard@unistra.fr writes: > Hello. I have the file (with name 'bug.org'): > > * foo :foofoofoo: > *************** TODO an inlinetask > foo > *************** END > barXXX > > > (1) 'C-c a m foofoofoo' > > gives be > > Headlines with TAGS match: foofoofoo > Press `M-0 r' to search again with new search string > bug: foo :foofoofoo: > bug: ..............TODO an inlinetask :foofoofoo:: > bug: ..............END :foofoofoo:: > > which I do not find really normal. > > (2) Similarly 'C-c a s barXXX' > > gives me > > Search words: barXXX > Press `[', `]' to add/sub word, `{', `}' to add/sub regexp, `M-0 r' to edit > bug: END :foofoofoo:: > Fixed. Thank you. > PS: Also, is that normal that inlinetaks are virtually not documented > in the manual? Inlinetasks has a lot of glitches like the one you noticed above. It is not ready for prime time. Worse, I don't think its design is good, either. Even if that sounds smart at first, inline tasks should not use the same syntax as first-class headlines. This introduces too many complications. However, since inline tasks have been around for years, it may be a good time to decide once and for all how, and if, they should be included in Org proper. Note that last time this discussion happened, we couldn't even agree on a set of features. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou