On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:58 AM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

>
> Calls in code base do not matter, since we can change them. The above
> Sexp would be equivalent to
>
>   (org-set-tags 'current)
>

Correct. I was just extrapolating based on that, that people could be
making similar uses in their configs and packages.

A search like this (
https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22org-set-tags+nil%22+language%3A%22Emacs+Lisp%22&type=Code
)
shows that (org-set-tags nil t) is pretty viral in one org-settings.el out
there.


> > instances in the Org source itself. I though just created a wrapper in my
> > personal config to do ALIGN-ONLY-CURRENT when prefix is C-u C-u.
>
> I don't think an user needs to distinguish between aligning all and
> aligning only current. I think this is just confusing.
>

That's alright. I can see that it might not be that useful as org-set-tags
anyways aligns the tags. (I am just used to abusing the free C-u C-u in my
config :))


> > PS: Also, in addition, was thinking of calling JUST-ALIGN ALIGN-ALL
> > instead.
>
> Sounds good.
>

Thanks.


> > With:
> >
> >     (defun org-set-tags (&optional ALIGN-ALL ALIGN-ONLY-CURRENT) ..
> >
> > it will be more apparent that they are mutually exclusive args.
>
> It still bugs me because (org-set-tags t t) doesn't make any sense.
>

Same sentiments here (I even fixed one case of (org-set-tags t t) in that
patch).


> WDYT?
>

The only concern is the one I presented above; doing this will break many
personal configs.
-- 

Kaushal Modi