From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chris Randle" Subject: RE: Checkboxes and intermediate state Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:48:44 -0000 Message-ID: <6E2ACEFCD9804F60A9411D1965D22893@CUBE> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYgQf-0001CP-K4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:49:01 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYgQd-0001CD-UC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:49:01 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40475 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LYgQd-0001CA-OV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:48:59 -0500 Received: from lon1-post-2.mail.demon.net ([195.173.77.149]:45521) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LYgQd-0005eY-BI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:48:59 -0500 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: 'Carsten Dominik' Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Carsten Carsten Dominik wrote: > this was an intentional change, I thought that a > simple command to get rid of a checkbox was more > important. > > I have put setting to [-] back in now, but you will need a double > prefix Thanks for doing that. The 6.22b manual needs updating on p46 (half-way down). I hate to come across as awkward, but I'd like to find out how others use checkboxes and their opinion of this change. I use checkboxes daily. Largely as a sub-set of mini-todos under a main todo heading. For example, I have a computer in for a fix, and as I work on it removing bits or changing settings, I'll quickly add a new line (`M-S-RET') to remind me to revert the changes afterwards. Mini-example of being part-way working through the finished list with a defrag kicked off: *** TODO Finish up - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC - [-] Defrag - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854 I've not used the new ability to convert lines to/from checkboxes, although I can see how it could be useful, especially on a block of items. But, there are a couple of things I'd like to get a feel for from others using checkboxes heavily: Taking the example above, and doing `C-u C-c C-c' on the defrag line, I don't see why this result *** TODO Finish up - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC - Defrag - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854 should be more important/useful/common than the previous pending state. Converting items to/from checkboxes, I should have thought, would have been something done once, whereas manipulating the state of a checkbox was something that is done more often. So I think that `C-u C-c C-c' should stay as toggle pending state and `C-u C-u C-c C-c' (less frequently used?) should be remove checkbox. Also, why then doesn't (currently) `C-u C-c C-c' put a checkbox back in? I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your fabulous code. I'm so grateful to you for Org-mode - it's miraculous. I just want to see if my usage is a minority style. -- Chris Randle Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b