From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH Make org-open-at-point only ask once
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:25:01 +0200
Message-ID: <87ty90jw8i.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <20110828200542.GS5700@0x63.nu> <87liuclmey.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20110829092146.GT5700@0x63.nu> <87d3folfu4.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20110829105345.GU5700@0x63.nu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50514)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1QxzyH-0006YT-29
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:25:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1QxzyF-00081v-Qe
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:25:41 -0400
Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:54657)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1QxzyF-00081r-I8
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:25:39 -0400
Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so4421750wyi.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110829105345.GU5700@0x63.nu> (Anders Waldenborg's message of
	"Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:53:45 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Anders Waldenborg <anders@0x63.nu>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Anders Waldenborg <anders@0x63.nu> writes:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:36:19AM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> Maybe we should define a consistent link search: ignore the narrowing
>> but first search in current sub-tree, if that fails (any error, I guess)
>> search in current tree and if that one fails too, search in the whole
>> buffer.
>
> So something with the same semantics as this:
>
> (defun find-nearest-heading-named (l)
>   (unless (find-heading-in-current-subtree l)
>     (up-one-level)
>     (find-nearest-heading-named l)))

Recursively, yes. And enclosing this with (org-with-wide-buffer ...)
macro.

> i.e find the target with its parent headings list sharing the longest
> prefix with current point's.
>
> * A
> ** B
> * C
> ** B
> ** D
> *** B
> *** E
>
> A link to B inside E would go to C/D/B because (C D B) shares longer
> prefix with (C D E) than (C B) and (A B) does.

To be sure we understand it the same way:

1. Go to E and search from there: failure.
2. Go to D and search from there: success.

And if there's a link to D in A/B:

1. Search from B: failure.
2. Search from A: failure.
3. Search from (point-min): success.

Also, I would use "hierarchically" (or the like) instead of "nearest",
which can be confusing, as in this example:

* A
** F
* B
** C
*** D
**** F

Linking F from B should point to **** F instead of ** F while the latter
is nearer if considered distance is positive difference between buffer
positions.

What do you (or anyone reading this) think?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou