From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix narrowing for 1-line subtrees Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:05:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87sgwkoue5.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <20190218002547.30325-1-leo.vivier@gmail.com> <87mumsqepg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <871s44cbzb.fsf@hidden> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40896) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw4A8-0001QB-5j for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:06:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw4A7-00018R-91 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:06:12 -0500 Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]:35177) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw4A7-00011m-26 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:06:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871s44cbzb.fsf@hidden> (Leo Vivier's message of "Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:24:24 +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" To: Leo Vivier Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Leo Vivier writes: > I understand. The rationale behind this idea was that it would only > modify the way narrowing works for subtrees just as AUCTeX's > `LaTeX-narrow-to-environment' works for environments. That's why I > didn't think it was a problem. It doesn't work the way `LaTeX-narrow-to-environment' works. In particular, AUCTeX's function /does not modify the buffer/. This is a big no-no, really. > You don't need to apologise, I went down this route because it was an > interesting project to address my problems with 1-line subtrees. As > I've said in the commit message, even if we address the problem of other > commands not seeing content added outside of the narrowing, we're still > left with the other problem which is that the user is not seeing those > changes. I wasn't content with this solution, and that's what prompted > me to write this. I suggest to not use narrowing, then. Maybe try editing remotely a subtree, similar to what is done for footnotes. I have the feeling this would have its own set of issues, too. > Could I suggest you try out this patch with its latest commit (sent on > Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:18:47 +0100) and gauge whether it affects your > workflow negatively? It is not about my workflow. I don't use 1-line subtrees. But anything related to narrowing or widening should not alter the buffer, per design. I may sound stubborn, but I don't think this is a way to handle the problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou