Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Daniel Fleischer <danflscr@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> At first it makes sense, but we do have headlines and TODO keywords to
>> express different states, colors and even sets of states. This is just a
>> checklist construct. I think if I wanted to mark something as canceled
>> or not relevant I would do something like this:
>>
>> - [ ] this is important.
>> - [X] +canceled+ this is not important.
>>
>> or even strike through everything. 
>
> FWIW, I use this:
>
> - [X] +This task will probably be canceled+
>
> I don't think we should implement a new status for canceled tasks.
> On top of the implementation (C-u C-u C-u C-c C-c ?), I believe it
> is more flexible to be able to let canceled tasks block the whole
> set of tasks---or not.  So both these tasks seem useful to me:
>
> - [X] +A canceled task+
> - [-] +A canceled task+
>
> Implementing "canceled tasks" will probably force one interpretation
> over another, we lose in flexibility and readability.
>
> 2 cts,

+1. As usual, I'm concerned about over engineering and over
complicating matters for corner cases. As you correctly point out,
implementing something here is likely to force a specific interpretation
of cancelled with may not fit with other interpretations.

If you do have a workflow which requires 'cancelling' check list items
frequently enough that adding surrounding + is too inconvenient, I doubt
it would be hard to write a simple command to add/remove surrounding
markers.

At any rate, at this point, I suspect this is something best handled in
individual configurations rather than attempting to impose a specific
interpretation on everyone. If someone needs help to write a simple
command to 'toggle' checkbox cancellation, I'm sure asking here will get
some assistance.