Values of org-indirect-buffer-display

Values of org-indirect-buffer-display

[Chris Randle]

I'm new to emacs and org-mode, so please forgive me if I've missed
something fundamental.

I've been using org-tree-to-indirect-buffer bound to the default C-c C-x
b, and saw in the help that you can modify org-indirect-buffer-display.
In my .emacs file, I've got the following:

(setq org-indirect-buffer-display 'new-frame)

When I hit C-c C-x b on a subtree, I do indeed get a narrowed subtree in
a new frame (call it frame 2). When I go back to the original frame and
repeat for a different subtree, that works too, but the buffer in frame
2 is killed. The help for org-tree-to-indirect-buffer says that a C-u
prefix will keep the last buffer, and this works as stated: the buffer
in frame 2 is then kept.

So my question: if C-u controls the persistence of the previous buffer,
what is intended difference between new-frame and dedicated-frame?

I had expected C-c C-x b with new-frame to work the same as C-u C-c C-x
b with dedicated-frame, and I feel that new-frame is redundant. I don't
see why anyone would want to keep opening new frames whilst killing the
indirect buffers in the previous ones.

-- 
Chris Randle

foldout.el (was Re: Values of org-indirect-buffer-display)

[Adam Spiers]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:38:36AM +0100, Chris Randle wrote:
> I'm new to emacs and org-mode, so please forgive me if I've missed
> something fundamental.
> 
> I've been using org-tree-to-indirect-buffer bound to the default C-c C-x
> b, and saw in the help that you can modify org-indirect-buffer-display.
> In my .emacs file, I've got the following:
> 
> (setq org-indirect-buffer-display 'new-frame)
> 
> When I hit C-c C-x b on a subtree, I do indeed get a narrowed subtree in
> a new frame (call it frame 2). When I go back to the original frame and
> repeat for a different subtree, that works too, but the buffer in frame
> 2 is killed. The help for org-tree-to-indirect-buffer says that a C-u
> prefix will keep the last buffer, and this works as stated: the buffer
> in frame 2 is then kept.
> 
> So my question: if C-u controls the persistence of the previous buffer,
> what is intended difference between new-frame and dedicated-frame?
> 
> I had expected C-c C-x b with new-frame to work the same as C-u C-c C-x
> b with dedicated-frame, and I feel that new-frame is redundant. I don't
> see why anyone would want to keep opening new frames whilst killing the
> indirect buffers in the previous ones.

This is probably not useful to you, but I just wanted to mention in
case it is useful to others, that foldout.el works quite nicely in
combination with org-mode, for narrowing to subtrees.  It works
recursively too.

(autoload 'foldout-exit-fold    "foldout")
(autoload 'foldout-zoom-subtree "foldout")
(mapc (lambda (mode)
        (add-hook mode
                  (lambda ()
                    ;; Quick navigation
                    (local-set-key [(shift left)]  'foldout-exit-fold)
                    (local-set-key [(shift right)] 'foldout-zoom-subtree)
                    )))
      '(outline-mode-hook outline-minor-mode-hook))

Re: Values of org-indirect-buffer-display

[Carsten Dominik]

On  17Oct2007, at 12:38 PM, Chris Randle wrote:

> I'm new to emacs and org-mode, so please forgive me if I've missed
> something fundamental.
>
> I've been using org-tree-to-indirect-buffer bound to the default C- 
> c C-x
> b, and saw in the help that you can modify org-indirect-buffer- 
> display.
> In my .emacs file, I've got the following:
>
> (setq org-indirect-buffer-display 'new-frame)
>
> When I hit C-c C-x b on a subtree, I do indeed get a narrowed  
> subtree in
> a new frame (call it frame 2). When I go back to the original frame  
> and
> repeat for a different subtree, that works too, but the buffer in  
> frame
> 2 is killed. The help for org-tree-to-indirect-buffer says that a C-u
> prefix will keep the last buffer, and this works as stated: the buffer
> in frame 2 is then kept.
>
> So my question: if C-u controls the persistence of the previous  
> buffer,
> what is intended difference between new-frame and dedicated-frame?
>
> I had expected C-c C-x b with new-frame to work the same as C-u C-c  
> C-x
> b with dedicated-frame, and I feel that new-frame is redundant. I  
> don't
> see why anyone would want to keep opening new frames whilst killing  
> the
> indirect buffers in the previous ones.

Yes, you are right here. I plan the following change, please comment:

When `org-indirect-buffer-display' is `new-frame', the old buffer is  
always kept
and C-u would be redundant.  For any other value of `org-indirect- 
buffer-display',
the C-u prefix will keep the old buffer.

I guess this still means that `new-frame' is the least useful value  
of this variable,
but still it might find its applications.

- Carsten