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

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/18/15, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>>   ((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.
>

[...]

> please refresh me on the grammar.  does section mean something like
> header + body text + children as a whole?

Section is what you call the body text.

> as a ui note, it might work to use symbols instead of numbers.  if the
> code could support it bloatlessly, maybe even allow mix and match so
> that you can do 3 without 2 if you want?

I suggested numbers because the visibility states defined were
incremental. It is also possible to name "views" with symbols. However
this is not the issue at the moment.

I'd like to know first what "views" are useful. Currently, for a given
context, there are 16 possible combinations. I'm pretty sure at least
half of them can be dropped.

"Minimal" view (state 1 above) and "canonical view" (state 4) are
mandatory. In between, I'm not sure what is used. I suggested two of
them. Apparently, you would also need 3 without 2 (i.e., siblings
without hierachy above).

Regards,