Re: switching between todo groups

From: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
To: Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: switching between todo groups
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:22:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7309351F-6C9E-4B9F-9E5A-AC38EB2B6D54@science.uva.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vi7ikzcqd0.fsf@home.net>

Hi Bastien, Richard,

thanks for the discussion!

Org-mode is plain text, so I don't have a good way to store which  
sequence is
being used *between* sessions.  Because of that, it seems to me that  
it does
not make a lot of sense to store the sequence during the current  
session, because
that would cause random behavior with exactly the same input.

So I don't really have a good solution for this.  Properties would be  
a way out, but
seem to be overkill for me.  The whole purpose of TODO keywords is to  
have something
much easier than properties.

It is best to have different keywords where possible, and in  
particular for the first
keyword in a sequence.  I will beef up the documentation in this  
respect.

- Carsten

On  3Nov2007, at 4:15 PM, Richard G Riley wrote:

> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Hey you mentionned in your first email that the manual  
>>>> explicitely said
>>>> the two sets should have different keywords, so "bug" is a bit  
>>>> too much
>>>> here :-)
>>>
>>> You misunderstand. When you try to switch it says "1/2" but wont
>>> switch. It should not recognise the second if you cant switch to  
>>> it I
>>> think.
>>
>> So your proposal is to ignore the second set if it is not well
>> defined?
>
> Yes. I was confused for a while as to why I couldn't select the second
> set. Or maybe no. But let the user know why they cant be used.
>
> It might be even better to really allow the selection. The next state
> change must be preceeded by a sequence selection each and every  
> time if
> you are not wanting to use the default (first) sequence. That would  
> make
> sense to me too.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe this would be even more confusing for the user: having 1/2  
>> in the
>> echo-area and not being able to get 2/2 makes you wonder what is  
>> wrong
>> with the second set...  what you precisely did.  If the second set is
>> simply ignored, then the user will be tempted to make Org know about
>> it rather than fixing it.
>>
>>>> Would you use this?
>>>
>>> Probably not as my initial query was more interest than anything  
>>> else
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> and I don't know what TYP_TODO is off the top of my head:-;
>>
>> Org used to handle the cycling through SEQ_TODO and TYP_TODO keywords
>> differently -- looks like it's not the case anymore...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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