From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Subject: Re: Re: Smarter indent with C-j Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:00:18 +0000 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 1HUPkh-0007FI-Hb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:02:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPke-0007DN-1u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:02:59 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPkd-0007DK-T2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:02:55 -0500 Received: from ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.139]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HUPip-0007gw-8s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:01:03 -0400 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: Eddward DeVilla Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org I CC the list. On 2007-03-22, Eddward DeVilla said: > On 3/22/07, Leo wrote: >> On 2007-03-07, Carsten Dominik said: >> >> > Fixed, thanks. > >> > >> > - Carsten >> >> 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 > > 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. > > 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 > > Sorry for some many questions. I'm not against it. I think I've convinced myself I'd > I'd like a deeper indent for readability. My just not sure what the right thing is in > all cases. > > Edd I didn't think of that many cases. But the questions are all good for triggering a better solution. Thanks. -- Leo (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)