From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: [Patch] M-Right and M-Left behave differently on headings and list items Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:07:41 +0200 Message-ID: <27D37EBD-C23A-42B9-80F4-417E45F552E6@gmail.com> References: <42881A23-3B5E-4423-B068-F543CE5B6AA7@gmail.com> <87ljchrkwp.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O4h9B-0003P0-Ch for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:07:49 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34550 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O4h9A-0003Na-0u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:07:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4h98-0006sm-9U for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:07:47 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:52742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4h97-0006sE-Rh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:07:46 -0400 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so1107358wyg.0 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Matti De Craene Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Bastien On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Matti De Craene wrote: > Hello Carsten and others, > > >> If you are calling for more consistency, maybe this "feature" should >> go as well? > > I do not have a strong opinion on this. In (my) day-to-day use of > org-mode, cases in which the difference between having a lock or not > matters rarely do occur. > > If consistency here is important, then it seems more sensible to me to > have the lock for headings as well, instead of removing it for list > items. When I grab a chunk of text to move back and forth, I do not > expect it to suddenly get hands and grab other pieces of text :-) Yes, I agree we should keep the lock for lists. For headlines I have never felt the need as much. > > I've discovered a bug in my patch today: > M-Right and M-Left on collapsed items take the complete subtree. On > collapsed headings they only take the current heading. I'm not sure > what would be the desired behaviour here... Excellent question. I think the cleanest would be that M-left/right on a folded item that does have children throws an error. - Carsten > > Kind Regards, > > Matti > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Carsten Dominik > wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Bastien wrote: >> >>> Carsten Dominik writes: >>> >>>> do others agree with Matti's view? >>> >>> FWIW, I do. >> >> There is still another difference. >> >> Currently, when I execute the indentation command >> several times in a row, the range to which this applies >> is locked. >> >> So for example" >> >> - level 1a >> - level 2a >> - level 2b >> - level 2c >> - level 1b >> >> If I now go on level 1a and use M-S-left, level 1b becomes a sibling >> of 2c. If I immediately after this do M-S-right, 1b should be >> indented >> along with 2c, but this does not happen because the item range is >> locked. If, however, you do something in between, like moving the >> cursor by one character, 1b will be included. >> >> I believe I did this a long time ago, because I felt that not locking >> the range for commands in direct succession would too quickly modify >> the structure, including at places outside of the current view ( >> beyond the window end) >> >> If you are calling for more consistency, maybe this "feature" should >> go as well? >> >> - Carsten >> >> - Carsten