From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: How to do proper folding and semantic markup Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:04:37 -0400 Message-ID: <87d1q3yaoa.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> References: <87vb438zm8.fsf@mercovich.net> <87pou5s9i9.fsf@mercovich.net> <871t6j69gf.fsf@mercovich.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56919) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anZ5f-0002LA-PY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:04:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anZ5a-00032f-QD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:04:51 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:47178) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anZ5a-00032D-JL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:04:46 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1anZ5X-0002KI-0z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:04:43 +0200 Received: from nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com ([66.187.233.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:04:43 +0200 Received: from ndokos by nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:04:43 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eduardo Mercovich writes: > Hi Adam. > >>> Also less known that it deserves, for focusing I do use narrowing a >>> lot: [...] > >> Yeah, that's basically what tree-to-indirect does, it makes an indirect >> buffer and then narrows it. So you can widen the indirect buffer and get >> another view of the whole buffer. [...] > > Excuse me if this sounds almost philosophical, but in which situation an > indirect buffer may be better that just focusing on the same (original) > buffer? For example, when you are toying with potentially big > modifications and don't want to replace the original? Is it like opening > a parallel path to try things without worries? > No - if you change the indirect buffer, you change the base buffer as well. See (info "(elisp) Indirect buffers") For some uses, see https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/IndirectBuffers -- nick