From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Wales Subject: Lists, headlines, inline tasks, etc. (Re: Lists handling) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:01:16 -0700 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40599 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMpJA-0000vJ-Bo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:01:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMpJ8-0000Vr-UV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:01:20 -0500 Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:48587) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMpJ8-0000VH-PN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:01:18 -0500 Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so11822460wyb.0 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) 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: Karl Maihofer Cc: Nicolas Goaziou , Eric S Fraga , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Carsten Dominik Philosophically, or better, fundamentally, what are the differences between headlines and lists? Haven't thought about list syntax deeply, but for one, you can have text before a list and then after it. For another, headlines allow significant metadata. Also, we have mechanisms, including the agenda, user code, and even third-party stuff, that treat headlines specially. Lists are typically (almost always) treated as text content in .org files. Exporters treat lists as exported lists, of course. Lists have checkboxes and bullet styles. I think these things make lists different from headlines. === I am starting to favor inline tasks in lists, if it is possible to implement. It keeps the concepts separate and allows ALL properties of headlines. These include todo kw, drawers, properties, tags, count and percent cookies, priorities, headline coloring, other coloring, and existing user code for headlines. Somehow, actually, I sense the potential for constant bug fixes, compatibility problems, version issues, surprise export behavior, and regular expression issues over the next few years if some of these are implemented in lists. I don't think it's worth it. At least, that is my intuition. Inline tasks are pretty much guaranteed to do the things we want them to do. And they fit with the philosophy in org of putting tasks in your notes exactly where you want them, instead of keeping them separate. If you have a long list, not allowing inline tasks in the list prevents that. === When I started with org, I thought lists might be an extraneous concept; anything we want to do with them should be done with headlines. But now that I have learned more about org and exporting, I think it's a good idea to have lists. The fundamental principle in software that this raised, for me, is the concept that if two things are similar enough, they should be made the same, only parameterized. But we are past the point of no return on lists. For example, we can't implement lists and headlines with the same code. And different code to do the same thing is just wrong. :) Of course we should have list navigation and shifting (promoting, demoting, moving) be analogous with headlines. But that is behavior; it isn't a fundamental need for parameterization. I'd say, with my current knowledge of org, it seems much better to allow inline tasks than to gradually make lists more like headlines by adding todo kw and the like. I know opinions vary on this (including Carsten's desire, expressed long ago, to add todo kw to lists). And I don't need inline tasks in lists. And again I have not thought deeply about list syntax. So consider it merely ideas for consideration. Another possibility is to use ID markers, which you can insert anywhere, can be made invisible for export, and can point to a real task. But it's not quite the same thing as an inline task. Samuel -- Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb? A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly serious disease for 25 years] ========== HIV-like virus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html -- PLEASE DONATE === I want to see the original (pre-hold) Lo et al. 2010 NIH/FDA/Harvard MLV paper.