adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

One feature I have always found helpful when working on long documents
is paragraph folding; where paragraphs are folded to display just the
first line.

MS Word had this very early on in its outline view, for example.

I can get paragraph folding and unfolding in org using packages like
origami (say with origami-toggle-all-nodes), but I was wondering if
there's a way to easily add it to org visibility cycling?

Bruce

Re: adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

> One feature I have always found helpful when working on long documents
> is paragraph folding; where paragraphs are folded to display just the
> first line.

[...]

> I can get paragraph folding and unfolding in org using packages like
> origami (say with origami-toggle-all-nodes), but I was wondering if
> there's a way to easily add it to org visibility cycling?

How would that work? I.e., 
- what key,
- how does it integrate with folding cycling, if it does at all?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

Hi Nicolas,

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 4:03 AM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > One feature I have always found helpful when working on long documents
> > is paragraph folding; where paragraphs are folded to display just the
> > first line.
>
> [...]
>
> > I can get paragraph folding and unfolding in org using packages like
> > origami (say with origami-toggle-all-nodes), but I was wondering if
> > there's a way to easily add it to org visibility cycling?
>
> How would that work? I.e.,
> - what key,
> - how does it integrate with folding cycling, if it does at all?

My question was based on the idea to do the latter.

Right now, I just keybindings for  origami-toggle-all-nodes origami-toggle-node.

But I was thinking to have this folding as a step between disclosing
all headings, and disclosing everything.

Does that make sense?

Bruce

Re: adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

> Right now, I just keybindings for  origami-toggle-all-nodes origami-toggle-node.
>
> But I was thinking to have this folding as a step between disclosing
> all headings, and disclosing everything.
>
> Does that make sense?

There could be elements between headlines and paragraphs, e.g., a drawer
or a block. Why would you fold the paragraphs without taking care of the
intermediate levels. Moreover, it adds steps in TAB cycle, which makes
it slower.

I'm not sure this is a great idea to add that to the global cycling
mechanism. Or maybe the global cycling should be configurable, e.g., as
a list of symbols that can be expanded with TAB. It could be complicated
to handle intermediate steps, as explained above.

As a data point, I wouldn't like to have to hit TAB five times before
returning to the original visibility state.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: adding paragraph folding to visibility cycling?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:51 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Right now, I just keybindings for  origami-toggle-all-nodes origami-toggle-node.
> >
> > But I was thinking to have this folding as a step between disclosing
> > all headings, and disclosing everything.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> There could be elements between headlines and paragraphs, e.g., a drawer
> or a block. Why would you fold the paragraphs without taking care of the
> intermediate levels.

I would treat them the same; fold at the same step.

> I'm not sure this is a great idea to add that to the global cycling
> mechanism. Or maybe the global cycling should be configurable, e.g., as
> a list of symbols that can be expanded with TAB. It could be complicated
> to handle intermediate steps, as explained above.
>
> As a data point, I wouldn't like to have to hit TAB five times before
> returning to the original visibility state.

Agreed. In my case here, I was imagining adding a single step.

But why I asked; wasn't sure how good an idea it was.