From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C-c ^ for plain lists? Why not?
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:25:29 +0200
Message-ID: <87pq4srfc6.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87626l6n6e.wl%jamshark70@dewdrop-world.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60151)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1TLI4f-0001cM-ON
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:29:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1TLI4e-0000C4-QR
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:29:05 -0400
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:50857)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1TLI4e-0000Bz-Jm
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:29:04 -0400
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u3so3015664wey.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87626l6n6e.wl%jamshark70@dewdrop-world.net> (James Harkins's
	message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:41:45 +0800")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: James Harkins <jamshark70@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

James Harkins <jamshark70@gmail.com> writes:

> I've started to like checklists because they are a good way to keep
> account of things that have to be done, without the individual items
> being entered into the agenda (and thus transferred to MobileOrg).
>
> But I'm running into the limitation that plain lists can't be sorted
> *by their checklist status*. You can sort alphabetically, numerically
> or by time or function. So, I guess I have to write a lisp function to
> do it... but I don't have time to do that right now, but I need to
> sort the list now...
>
> Valid feature request?

There are four states: checked box, unchecked box, transitory box and no
box at all. I can't see an order that should be prevalent over others.

As such, I think it is a specific use-case that should be treated by "f"
or "F" sorting key. Such a sorting function could be an interesting Org
Hacks addition.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou