Re: Re: Smarter indent with C-j

[Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com>]

I CC the list.

On 2007-03-22, Eddward DeVilla said:

> On 3/22/07, Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-07, Carsten Dominik said:
>>
>> > Fixed, thanks.
>
>> >
>> > - Carsten
>>
>> I just noticed one minor issue for check boxes. As in org 4.69:
>>
>>    - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j
>>      |<--- cursor moved here
>>
>> I think the following is more elegant:
>>    - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j
>>          |<--- cursor moved here
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I tend to use the top behavior, but I do kind of the look of the second one.  How would
> you handle subcheck boxes?
>
>   - [ ] list 1
>         - [ ] list 1.1
>
> or
>
>   - [ ] list 1
>     - [ ] list 1.1
>
> Now that I think of it, this could be a little hairy for me.  Right now the behavior is
> uniform.  Always a 2 char indent (but I could live with a uniform 4 or 6 char).  But
> sometimes I do the following
>
>   - [/] list 1
>     - [ ] list 1.1
>
> The size of the [/] token can vary.  I think I'd still like it to be treated like a box
> in this case.  I guess I'd like it to indent the number of character as a checkbox
> line.  
>
> Also, how would you handle numbered lists where the indent would also change for lists
> with 10 or more items.
>
>    1) [ ] foo1
>           bar1
>    2) [ ] foo2
>           bar2
>     ...
>    10) [ ] foo10
>            bar10
>
> Sorry for some many questions.  I'm not against it.  I think I've convinced myself I'd
> I'd like a deeper indent for readability.  My just not sure what the right thing is in
> all cases.
>
> Edd

I didn't think of that many cases. But the questions are all good for
triggering a better solution. Thanks.

-- 
Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)