* Checkboxes and intermediate state @ 2009-02-14 15:46 Chris Randle 2009-02-15 9:02 ` Carsten Dominik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chris Randle @ 2009-02-14 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Hi Carsten Until recently, if I used `C-u C-c C-c' with the cursor on the line with Item B in the following example: - [X] Item A - [ ] Item B - [ ] Item C I'd get: - [X] Item A - [-] Item B - [ ] Item C Now (6.21b) I get: - [X] Item A - Item B - [ ] Item C Think this may be an unintentional side-effect of the recent changes to the list code. Hope so, because I quite like using that mark to register the item that I'm working on currently - an "in progress" marker. The fact that it's taken me weeks to spot this shows how often any progress is made in my world! -- Chris Randle Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state 2009-02-14 15:46 Checkboxes and intermediate state Chris Randle @ 2009-02-15 9:02 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-02-15 12:48 ` Chris Randle 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-15 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Randle; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hi Chris, 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 C-u C-u C-c C-c HTH - Carsten On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Chris Randle wrote: > Hi Carsten > > Until recently, if I used `C-u C-c C-c' with the cursor on the line > with > Item B in the following example: > > - [X] Item A > - [ ] Item B > - [ ] Item C > > I'd get: > > - [X] Item A > - [-] Item B > - [ ] Item C > > Now (6.21b) I get: > > - [X] Item A > - Item B > - [ ] Item C > > Think this may be an unintentional side-effect of the recent changes > to > the list code. Hope so, because I quite like using that mark to > register > the item that I'm working on currently - an "in progress" marker. The > fact that it's taken me weeks to spot this shows how often any > progress > is made in my world! > > -- > Chris Randle > Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Checkboxes and intermediate state 2009-02-15 9:02 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-15 12:48 ` Chris Randle 2009-02-15 14:56 ` Carsten Dominik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chris Randle @ 2009-02-15 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Carsten Dominik'; +Cc: emacs-orgmode 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state 2009-02-15 12:48 ` Chris Randle @ 2009-02-15 14:56 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-02-15 15:05 ` Sivaram Neelakantan 2009-02-17 3:20 ` Eddward DeVilla 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Randle; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hi Chris, On Feb 15, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Chris Randle wrote: > 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. The reason for this assumption is that as of now, you are the only person *I know* who uses this have-ready state of checkboxes. Given the fact that I every now and then do need to remove a checkbox, this seemed the logical choice to me. But I am glad you bring it up, it is perfectly possible that I see it wrong and that it would be better to reverse the action of single and double prefix argument. > 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? The reason for this is technical. `C-c C-c' is a context-sensitive key. If there is a checkbox, the context is "checkbox" and it calls org-toggle-checkbox, which does do the interpretation of the prefix argument. If the context is just "item", not "checkbox", so it is less clear to the context detector what should be done. You can try this by using the direct key for org-toggle-checkbox, `C-c C-x C-b'. It will re-insert a checkbox (in fact even without a prefix arg because there is nothing else to do). > I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your > fabulous > code. Do not worry about this. I do have a side job as a scientist and am quite used to constructive criticism. :-) - Carsten ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state 2009-02-15 14:56 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-15 15:05 ` Sivaram Neelakantan 2009-02-17 3:20 ` Eddward DeVilla 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Sivaram Neelakantan @ 2009-02-15 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes: [snipped 47 lines] >> I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your >> fabulous code. > > Do not worry about this. I do have a side job as a scientist and am > quite used to constructive criticism. :-) > > - Carsten Which brings me to the biggest criticism. I have this task "Go Make Tea" and it's been a year and Org has still *NOT* made tea. What sort of code is this? :-) sivaram -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state 2009-02-15 14:56 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-02-15 15:05 ` Sivaram Neelakantan @ 2009-02-17 3:20 ` Eddward DeVilla 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Eddward DeVilla @ 2009-02-17 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote: > The reason for this assumption is that as of now, you are the only > person *I know* who uses this have-ready state of checkboxes. > Given the fact that I every now and then do need to remove > a checkbox, this seemed the logical choice to me. > > But I am glad you bring it up, it is perfectly possible that > I see it wrong and that it would be better to reverse the > action of single and double prefix argument. Thanks to this thread, I'm now aware of these commands and will make good use of both. Thanks! Edd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-17 3:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-02-14 15:46 Checkboxes and intermediate state Chris Randle 2009-02-15 9:02 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-02-15 12:48 ` Chris Randle 2009-02-15 14:56 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-02-15 15:05 ` Sivaram Neelakantan 2009-02-17 3:20 ` Eddward DeVilla
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).