From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Brand Subject: Re: M-RET and C-RET Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20111126195304.61776.qmail@rage.so36.net> <87mxbaq7f2.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RWsuy-0005hO-HM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:58:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RWsuw-00058w-AZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:58:28 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:38804) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RWsuw-00058V-2a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:58:26 -0500 Received: by wgbdt11 with SMTP id dt11so3147641wgb.30 for ; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 08:58:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87mxbaq7f2.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: sindikat , Org Mode Hi Nicolas I try to argue for some supposed common Org user that likes it simple like me, is used to the behavior of M-RET and C-RET on headings and is about to learn to use lists and M-RET but doesn't want to know about org-M-RET-may-split-line that he prefers to leave on its default as typical for trying out step by step. I don't argue for myself, I had already found out and understand how to configure and how to do. But if M-RET with point on "j" would insert _below_: 1) it would be simpler to understand (from the user view, not necessarily for implementation but often there too) because also M-RET with point on "d" inserts already below 2) it would make possible to add a new list item below the last with M-RET already with the default org-M-RET-may-split-line or even emacs -Q I can not see anything that could not be done with this that can be done now. What am I missing? On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:24, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Michael Brand writes: >> With >> >> #+begin_src org >> ,*** abc >> ,*** def >> , - ghi >> , - jkl >> #+end_src >> >> M-RET on "j" inserts a line above but I expected it below. If I >> want a line above I would move the point to "-" before doing M-RET >> like I do on a heading where I move to the first "*" to get the insert >> above. > > Point isn't on "j". It's either before or after it. In your case, point > is before "j". When I wrote this I exactly asked myself which of these two perspectives I want to choose: - "point is before 'j'": - in some cases it leaves the question open if it means just before or rather between something (e. g. beginning of line) and "j" - sounds to me like referring to an edit cursor shape that is a bar between characters which is not the cursor shape of all users - "point is on 'j'": - can refer to the position of point in the buffer like with "C-x =" or the Emacs Lisp functions "point" and some "point-*" - can refer to the character address or fsetpos() position in the corresponding file - can refer to an edit cursor shape that is a box on a character (the only possibility for some terminal emulators and the default for the windowed GNU Emacs on Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris) I hope that this explains my preference for the second. > And using M-RET on an item before its body start will > result in creating an item before it. > > This is done so to avoid splitting counters or check-boxes. I don't understand this. What would be wrong with - point on "-": M-RET inserts above - point on "[X]": M-RET inserts below (consistent with point on TODO on a line "*** TODO def") - point on "j": M-RET inserts below - point on "kl": M-RET splits (default config) when considering the line " - [X] jkl"? > You shouldn't compare lists and headlines behaviour, they don't have the > same constraints. Nevertheless, wouldn't point 1) at the top add more consistency? >> I configured it to nil for headline and item only to be able to insert >> a new list item below the current with M-RET where I am forced to be >> on or at right of "k" which by default splits which I want only in >> very rare cases. > > If you want to split lines only on very rare occasions, why is it > a problem to set `org-M-RET-may-split-line' to nil? Not a problem for me, trying to simplify for others, see at the top and also its point 2). >> And one should not be invited to avoid M-RET and edit lists with "-" >> and TAB as illustrated in the thread "org-list-indent-offset only >> works partially": http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/47954 > > Which part of the thread are you referring to? I see no suggestion about > avoiding usage of M-RET. I'm sorry for the confusion and hope it becomes clearer this way: As illustrated in the thread "org-list-indent-offset only works partially" here http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/47954 one should not insert list items by editing with "-" and TAB but use M-RET. What I meant with the "invitation to avoid M-RET" is that until I understood better a few weeks ago I used "-" and TAB to insert a new item below the current line because more or less intentionally I left org-M-RET-may-split-line at its default and because - M-RET did not let me add a new list item below the last, and the relation to org-M-RET-may-split-line was not obvious for me - when I wanted to insert a new list item below the current line I didn't like (maybe silly, I know) to move to the next item to be able to use M-RET to insert above from there Michael