Re: three bugs/misfeatures in org-reveal (or is org-reveal the wrong way to reveal around point?)

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:

> thanks for clarifying.  that seems to eliminate all possibility of
> specifying canonical visibility using org show variables.

Indeed.

> thus, this is a feature that is strangely missing in org, as opposed
> to a bug.

I agree. Also, I find the configuration in this area overly complicated.

> canonical visibility roughly means a visibility state that can be
> created at any time using org-cycle and arrow keys.
>
> for example, if only the first child is showing, then it is not
> canonical visibility.  the only things that should NOT show are
> entirely folded headers, blocks, etc.
>
> this is the only kind of visibility that i ever use unless i am doing
> a sparse tree, which is extremely rare.

I think we could simplify the show context configuration and, at the
same time, provide a way to show "canonical visibility". 

For example, we can merge `org-show-hierarchy-above',
`org-show-following-heading', `org-show-siblings' and
`org-show-entry-below' into a single variable,
`org-show-context-detail', where each context is associated to a level,
e.g., for current default configuration,

  ((default . 2)
   (occur-tree . 1)
   (tags-tree . 1)
   (isearch . 3)
   (bookmark-jump . 3))

where

  1. means only the minimal location is shown, i.e., top level
     headline + headline, and section (no child) if match is not on
     a headline.

  2. means context 1 + hierarchy above

  3. means context 2 + siblings

  4. means canonical view, i.e, show full hierarchy above and siblings,
     and, if match is within a section, show also section and all
     children.

We lose a bit of control, but I think left out combinations are not very
interesting. But I may be wrong.

WDYT?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou