Hiding/Narrowing dblocks and keywords

Hiding/Narrowing dblocks and keywords

[Leonidas Tsampros]

Hello,

I'm a recent new happy org-mode user. While hacking around and using it
for various tasks/todos and schedules, it occured to me that keywords
and dynamic blocks take a lot of screen real estate while I do very
little editing on them.

Is there a way to have dblocks/keywords hidden/narrowed in a per buffer
manner?

Unfortuantely, I could not locate something similar in the manual or
google. I'm using Emacs 23.1 and Org 6.21b. 

Any input will be helpful.

Thanks,
Leonidas

PS: I'm not subscribed to this list, so please include me in the
replies.

Re: Hiding/Narrowing dblocks and keywords

[Bastien]

Hi Leonidas,

Leonidas Tsampros <ltsampros@upnet.gr> writes:

> I'm a recent new happy org-mode user. While hacking around and using it
> for various tasks/todos and schedules, it occured to me that keywords
> and dynamic blocks take a lot of screen real estate while I do very
> little editing on them.

You can now use this:

  M-x org-narrow-to-block RET (or C-x n b)

This work for all blocks, being source blocks or dynamic blocks.

(Note that the usual way of editing src block is to use C-c ' .)

> Is there a way to have dblocks/keywords hidden/narrowed in a per
> buffer manner?

I'm not sure I understand the part of your request re keywords,
though...  can you explicit a bit?

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Hiding/Narrowing dblocks and keywords

[Leonidas Tsampros]

Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:
> Hi Leonidas,
>
> Leonidas Tsampros <ltsampros@upnet.gr> writes:
>
>> I'm a recent new happy org-mode user. While hacking around and using it
>> for various tasks/todos and schedules, it occured to me that keywords
>> and dynamic blocks take a lot of screen real estate while I do very
>> little editing on them.
>
> You can now use this:
>
>   M-x org-narrow-to-block RET (or C-x n b)
>
> This work for all blocks, being source blocks or dynamic blocks.
>
> (Note that the usual way of editing src block is to use C-c ' .)
>

I cannot find such a command in my current version of Org-mode (6.21b)
so I'll have to upgrade first and then test. Thanks. 

>> Is there a way to have dblocks/keywords hidden/narrowed in a per
>> buffer manner?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the part of your request re keywords,
> though...  can you explicit a bit?
>
> Thanks,

Yes. Let's say I have a buffer like this:

#+LINK: blabla1 http://blablabla/%s
#+LINK: blabla2 http://blablabla2.org/%s
#+LINK: blabla3 http://blablabla3.org/%s
#+TODO: TODO1(t) | DONE1(d)

* test entry1
#+BEGIN clocktable :maxlevel 3 :scope file :link
Clock summary etc etc

<clock table would be here with multiple lines>
#+END:

My question is: Can I hide the keywords defined on the top of the buffer
and the keywords defined for the dynamic block that might be occurring
further in my tree?

Did I clarify my question enough? Or am I misunderstading the way
dblocks/keywords work?

Thanks,
Leonidas

Re: Hiding/Narrowing dblocks and keywords

[Bastien]

Hi Leonidas,

Leonidas Tsampros <ltsampros@upnet.gr> writes:

> My question is: Can I hide the keywords defined on the top of the buffer

You can hide *some* keywords with org-hidden-keywords.  The docstring
was not accurate, I just fixed it.  For example you can use:

  (setq org-hidden-keywords '(author)) 

to make the #+AUTHOR: keyword invisible.  You cannot use *any* keyword
though: only title, author, date, email.  I think it makes sense since
hiding other #+* keywords could be confusing (but I don't have a strong
opinion about this.)

> * test entry1
> #+BEGIN clocktable :maxlevel 3 :scope file :link
> Clock summary etc etc
>
> <clock table would be here with multiple lines>
> #+END:

You can hide #+begin blocks at startup with this:

  (setq org-hide-block-startup t)

There was a bug here preventing the folding of dynamic blocks, other
blocks were folding okay.

See also 

  M-x org-hide-block-all
  M-x org-hide-block-toggle

> Did I clarify my question enough? Or am I misunderstading the way
> dblocks/keywords work?

Hope I clarified some points, thanks!

-- 
 Bastien