Re: [Patch] M-Right and M-Left behave differently on headings and list items

[Matti De Craene <mattidecraene@gmail.com>]

Hello Carsten and others,


> If you are calling for more consistency, maybe this "feature" should
> go as well?

I do not have a strong opinion on this. In (my) day-to-day use of
org-mode, cases in which the difference between having a lock or not
matters rarely do occur.

If consistency here is important, then it seems more sensible to me to
have the lock for headings as well, instead of removing it for list
items. When I grab a chunk of text to move back and forth, I do not
expect it to suddenly get hands and grab other pieces of text :-)

I've discovered a bug in my patch today:
M-Right and M-Left on collapsed items take the complete subtree. On
collapsed headings they only take the current heading. I'm not sure
what would be the desired behaviour here...

Kind Regards,

Matti


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Carsten Dominik
<carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Bastien wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> do others agree with Matti's view?
>>
>> FWIW, I do.
>
> There is still another difference.
>
> Currently, when I execute the indentation command
> several times in a row, the range to which this applies
> is locked.
>
> So for example"
>
>     - level 1a
>        - level 2a
>        - level 2b
>        - level 2c
>     - level 1b
>
> If I now go on level 1a and use M-S-left, level 1b becomes a sibling
> of 2c.  If I immediately after this do M-S-right, 1b should be indented
> along with 2c, but this does not happen because the item range is
> locked.  If, however, you do something in between, like moving the
> cursor by one character, 1b will be included.
>
> I believe I did this a long time ago, because I felt that not locking
> the range for commands in direct succession would too quickly modify
> the structure, including at places outside of the current view (
> beyond the window end)
>
> If you are calling for more consistency, maybe this "feature" should
> go as well?
>
> - Carsten
>
>