From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Puneeth Chaganti Subject: Re: [PATCH] org-id-goto doesn't work if buffer is narrowed. Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 17:19:01 +0530 Message-ID: References: <874mhh1u7s.fsf@gmx.us> <87oafpz65e.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxK6-00028A-BE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:49:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxK5-0003t0-8n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:49:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]:35580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxK5-0003sn-2a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:49:21 -0400 Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so60483955wic.0 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 04:49:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: John Kitchin Cc: emacs-orgmode , Rasmus Hi John, On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 5:03 PM, John Kitchin wrote: > > Maybe I am missing something here. I would expect org-id-goto to actually > get to the id entry when it is used independent of narrowing. When used in a > program, I would expect this behavior to be wrapped in save-restriction type > macros, so it wouldn't change your restriction. But when used interactively, > e.g. when I click on a link, I expect the point to end up on the id entry, > with the buffer open in front of me, even if that means widening. Is there > some other expectation that makes sense? I feel like it is up to me to > decide if breaking the restriction is worth visiting the link, and only by > clicking on the link or running an interactive command makes that happen. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. I wasn't thinking clearly, before. I completely agree with you that the user should be the one deciding if its "worth breaking the restriction". Any calling code would be saving restriction, if that is the intent. +1 on simply widening the buffer, with an optional warning/error that can be turned on or off with a variable. -- Puneeth