Re: Feature Request: attach link type

[Bastien <bzg@altern.org>]

Hi Darlan,

Darlan Cavalcante Moreira <darcamo@gmail.com> writes:

> I knew there was some variable to control this for all elisp links. I would
> prefer not to set this to nil, since I like the confirmation for other
> elisp links and since links for attached files are common for me I thought
> it could be a "built-in link". But that's OK.

I just introduced `org-confirm-elisp-link-not-regexp' which allows the
user to avoid confirmation step for elisp code matching a regexp.  Hope
that helps in your case.

> My common use scenario for org-attach is to store files associated to a
> sub-tree. For instance, when I receive a file by E-mail that I need to read
> I create a task for it and attach the file. I usually need to change the
> file name, since I don't like spaces and If would be practical if I could
> attach the file as it is and know that org-attach would store it the way I
> like. Is there a hook I could use to do this myself then? (I'm not a lisp
> programmer, but think I can google tips about how to do this).

I've been working a bit on your idea, it's possible to create a function
and to use it to rename a file when the user is attaching it - but there
are problems: for example, if this function changes, then there will be
*several* attachements for the same file...  we don't want that.

So, renaming the file belongs elsewhere IMHO.

>> >  - When a file is attached a link to it could be stored in the kill ring,
>> >    in case the user want to insert it in the current text. Alternatively,
>> >    an interactive function to insert a link to an attached file (using the
>> >    same completions we already get for opening attached files) would also
>> >    be very handy.
>> 
>> Yes, good idea.
>> 
>> From latest git, set `org-attach-store-link-p' to `t' if you want a link
>> to be stored in `org-stored-links' when attaching a file.
>
> This is even better then storing it in the kill ring. I noticed that the
> link points to the location of the original file and not to the location
> where it was attached (which is what thought it would do). Is this what you
> intended?

Yes.  Since the file is now also available as an attachment, a link to
the source file might be useful, while a link to the attached file is a
bit redundant with what org-attach allows you to do (get the file).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien