From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Wales Subject: Re: three bugs/misfeatures in org-reveal (or is org-reveal the wrong way to reveal around point?) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87h9vpss6a.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oapwqwie.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36319) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCwQC-00008i-Rx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:26:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCwQB-0005cL-NF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:26:08 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f]:52059) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCwQB-0005cC-F6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:26:07 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z11so25251445lbi.6 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:26:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87oapwqwie.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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 , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org 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. i definitely like the idea of a single place to set visibility. i imagine that would clarify the code and make it so that users can quickly determine what is possible. please refresh me on the grammar. does section mean something like header + body text + children as a whole? 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? === as a brainstorm, a new visibility command could cycle among the available visibility states locally [i.e. as if you had set the variable differently]. that might be implementationally troublesome, but i would use it if it existed. of course i'd use canonical as the default. in such a cycling, if it were implemented, i personally would want a state that is like canonical visibility, but without body text. it would be similar to doing show-branches in a highly time-consuming way where you show siblings and hierarchy above and siblings above but no body text. this is /almost/ canonical, in that it does not leave out anything except body text. i think that would be particularly useful for people who write books or blog posts as you'd get everything related to structure and nothing not related to it. i.e. never surprised at the lack of a headline. > We lose a bit of control, but I think left out combinations are not very > interesting. But I may be wrong. > > WDYT? one issue with existing code is that isearch-mode-end-hook and defadvice of org-show-context seem not to always work, perhaps because org sets a post-command-hook, which i find confusing. still have not figured it out. getting rid of post-command-hook stuff might be useful? another issue is speed; the existing code is slow for me, although perhaps not much can be improved. samuel -- The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY can get it. Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.