From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Subject: Re: Re: Smarter indent with C-j Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HVPIS-000325-Gs for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:45:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HVPIQ-00031t-VB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:45:56 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVPIQ-00031q-T3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:45:54 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HVPGJ-00066i-6e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:43:43 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HVPGA-0008Lb-RX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:43:34 +0200 Received: from sl392.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.223.202]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:43:34 +0200 Received: from sdl.web by sl392.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:43:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Eddward DeVilla's message of "Thu\, 22 Mar 2007 10\:48\:06 -0500") 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org I now find some time to think about Eddward's questions and I just realized all those questions have little to do with what C-j should do. My proposed change is in common with some other outliners such as this one: http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnioutliner/pro/ Any comments? On 2007-03-22, Eddward DeVilla said: >> I just noticed one minor issue for check boxes. As in org 4.69: >> >> - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j >> |<--- cursor moved here >> >> I think the following is more elegant: >> - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j >> |<--- cursor moved here >> >> What do people think? > > I tend to use the top behavior, but I do kind of the look of the > second one. How would you handle subcheck boxes? > > - [ ] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 > or > > - [ ] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 This is not related to C-j, which stays in the same list entry or heading. > > Now that I think of it, this could be a little hairy for me. Right >now the behavior is > uniform. Always a 2 char indent (but I could live with a uniform 4 or 6 char). But > sometimes I do the following > > - [/] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 > > The size of the [/] token can vary. I think I'd still like it to be treated like a box > in this case. I guess I'd like it to indent the number of character as a checkbox > line. Again, not related to what C-j does. > > Also, how would you handle numbered lists where the indent would >also change for lists > with 10 or more items. > > 1) [ ] foo1 > bar1 > 2) [ ] foo2 > bar2 > ... > 10) [ ] foo10 > bar10 Again not related. C-j is about aligning text. Best, -- Leo (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)