Re: Only showing part of a list

[Cecil Westerhof <cldwesterhof@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2073 bytes --]

2015-03-11 14:23 GMT+01:00 John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu>:

> Even if it were possible, what would you expect to happen when actions
> 1-5 were checked off? Should the list show the next 5? How would you
> expand the list to see all of it? When would it be visible or not?
>

​I did not expect a simple answer. ;-)​

​Just something to get started.​ In principle I think you should normally
not see more as five action entries and should (normally) not have the
possibility to select new entries to show when there are still more as
three entries shown.

I have my own function that checks an entry and put it at the end of the
list.

I personally would want to have to select the new to show entries. Most of
the time that would be the next entries, but not always.



> It sounds like this would be a good case for subheadings, to break up
> the long check list.
>

​Then I get something like:
    * Actions [0/5]
      - [ ] First action
      - [ ] Second action
      - [ ] Third action
      - [ ] Fourth action
      - [ ] Fifth Action
      - Next actions [0/25]
        - [ ] Sixth action
          .
          .
          .
        - [ ] Thirtieth action

So I do not see the total amount of actions. (At least not when actions is
in overview mode.) Or can that be solved?​




> Cecil Westerhof writes:
>
> > The following is part of an org-file:
> >
> >     * Actions [0/30]
> >       - [ ] First action
> >       - [ ] Second action
> >       - [ ] Third action
> >       - [ ] Fourth action
> >       - [ ] Fifth Action
> >         .
> >         .
> >         .
> >       - [ ] Thirtieth action
> >
> > But I am only interested in the first five actions, so I would like it to
> > be displayed like:
> >     * Actions [0/30]
> >       - [ ] First action
> >       - [ ] Second action
> >       - [ ] Third action
> >       - [ ] Fourth action
> >       - [ ] Fifth Action
> >       ...
> >
> > ​​Would that (in the future) be possible?
>

-- 
Cecil Westerhof

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3617 bytes --]