From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: an annoying indentation Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:13:14 +0200 Message-ID: <8b3012ea89eadc6bd330d9af9c2b1315@science.uva.nl> References: <466ED55E.1070804@calicojack.co.uk> <3a39e8471057cbbd01a7dca42cdc3d39@science.uva.nl> <20070614105700.46b2b82d@CNDLS-3T02621> <28563.1181833352@lap1.smtl.co.uk> <982c465a6635a5e96e2ab7684fcff518@science.uva.nl> <41c818190706150644y5c0c909dy52cacbf022871b1c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzCY6-000432-35 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:13:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzCY4-00042U-HW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:13:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzCY4-00042P-BT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:13:12 -0400 Received: from korteweg.uva.nl ([146.50.98.70]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HzCY4-0003eo-0p for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:13:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <41c818190706150644y5c0c909dy52cacbf022871b1c@mail.gmail.com> 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: William Henney Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Jun 15, 2007, at 15:44, William Henney wrote: >> Note that this will also imply that a list like >> >> - item 1 >> - item 2 >> - item 2a >> - item 2b >> - item 3 >> >> would be flattened by TAB presses going from top to bottom. >> > > Not according to my understanding, since items 2a and 2b would fall > under the "unless it already has a deeper indentation than that" > clause, so TAB wouldn't touch them. I'm not sure that this is what > everyone else is agreeing to though... Yes, I did notice that extra bit in your proposal. However, I think it will easily lead to unwanted behavior as well: ** heading - item 1 - item 2 - item 3 will get you: ** heading - item 1 - item 2 - item 3 after doing the TAB dance. - Carsten