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

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

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.

i definitely like the idea of a single place to set visibility.  i
imagine that would clarify the code and make it so that users can
quickly determine what is possible.

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

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?

===

as a brainstorm, a new visibility command could cycle among the
available visibility states locally [i.e. as if you had set the
variable differently].  that might be implementationally troublesome,
but i would use it if it existed.  of course i'd use canonical as the
default.

in such a cycling, if it were implemented, i personally would want a
state that is like canonical visibility, but without body text.

it would be similar to doing show-branches in a highly time-consuming
way where you show siblings and hierarchy above and siblings above but
no body text.  this is /almost/ canonical, in that it does not leave
out anything except body text.  i think that would be particularly
useful for people who write books or blog posts as you'd get
everything related to structure and nothing not related to it.  i.e.
never surprised at the lack of a headline.

> We lose a bit of control, but I think left out combinations are not very
> interesting. But I may be wrong.
>
> WDYT?

one issue with existing code is that isearch-mode-end-hook and
defadvice of org-show-context seem not to always work, perhaps because
org sets a post-command-hook, which i find confusing. still have not
figured it out.  getting rid of post-command-hook stuff might be
useful?

another issue is speed; the existing code is slow for me, although
perhaps not much can be improved.


samuel

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.  And
ANYBODY can get it.

Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.