Ah, sorry. So what I mean is, if you have a long list of lines like this: * A 5:10 ... * B 8:40 ... * C 2:50 ... Then it is a bit tricky to see what time is clocked for, say, B. It is easy above because there are only three nodes. But if you have 20 nodes, it gets tricky. So my thinking was that previously the "...................." bits helped to guide your eye across. But I am not so sure, you know. Because if you have 20 of those in a row, it's not really helping much. * A ........................................................... 5:10 ... * B ........................................................... 8:40 ... * C ........................................................... 2:50 ... Again, this is easy when you just have three. But you have 20 in a row, it's hard to follow. So my idea was to use something like ln-line (thanks!) to show you where you are. Then I can just navigate around the nodes, and it is obvious what time matches up to what node. Bit I'm wondering if you have any better ideas. Or, given the readability problems, it makes sense to display the "..............." bits by default. (Though I am not sure that they are actually much more readable.) This is one of the reasons I suggested an alternative approach: do not align the times to the right at all, just stick them right next to the node titles, like so: * Apple 5:10 ... * Bananas 8:40 ... * Carrots 2:50 ... As you can see, the times wont line up then, but matching them to the node titles is easy. On 17 April 2014 13:43, Bastien wrote: > Noah Slater writes: > > > Now I need to solve the problem of being able to tie the node to the > > clock-display. (If there's a big list, then it's hard to visually > > match them.) > > I'm not really sure what you mean by "tie the node to the clock-display". > > > I think I recall a minor mode that highlighted the current line your > > point is on. > > M-x hl-line-mode RET > > > That would fix it. But then, it would be nice if that > > worked with my mouse too. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > I think unless there's an obvious way to solve this, that it might > > actually make sense to have the "......." bit visible by default, and > > provide an option to turn it off for people who don't mind the way it > > looks. > > > > Thoughts? > > The dots have been removed, so really not sure what we are talking > about :) But if you want to make the folding three dots "..." be > displayed differently, that's hard -- and I don't think it's worth > the time. > > -- > Bastien >