From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: three bugs/misfeatures in org-reveal (or is org-reveal the wrong way to reveal around point?) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:24:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87wq4fx1x3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87h9vpss6a.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oapwqwie.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2kG-0005pM-IS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:23:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2kD-0004Nh-9T for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:23:24 -0500 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::197]:60722) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2kD-0004NZ-3W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:23:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Samuel Wales's message of "Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:26:05 -0700") 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: Samuel Wales Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Samuel Wales writes: > On 1/18/15, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> ((default . 2) >> (occur-tree . 1) >> (tags-tree . 1) >> (isearch . 3) >> (bookmark-jump . 3)) >> >> where >> >> 1. means only the minimal location is shown, i.e., top level >> headline + headline, and section (no child) if match is not on >> a headline. >> >> 2. means context 1 + hierarchy above >> >> 3. means context 2 + siblings >> >> 4. means canonical view, i.e, show full hierarchy above and siblings, >> and, if match is within a section, show also section and all >> children. > [...] > please refresh me on the grammar. does section mean something like > header + body text + children as a whole? Section is what you call the body text. > as a ui note, it might work to use symbols instead of numbers. if the > code could support it bloatlessly, maybe even allow mix and match so > that you can do 3 without 2 if you want? I suggested numbers because the visibility states defined were incremental. It is also possible to name "views" with symbols. However this is not the issue at the moment. I'd like to know first what "views" are useful. Currently, for a given context, there are 16 possible combinations. I'm pretty sure at least half of them can be dropped. "Minimal" view (state 1 above) and "canonical view" (state 4) are mandatory. In between, I'm not sure what is used. I suggested two of them. Apparently, you would also need 3 without 2 (i.e., siblings without hierachy above). Regards,