[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Smarter indent with C-j
From: |
Leo |
Subject: |
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Smarter indent with C-j |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:00:18 +0000 |
User-agent: |
No Gnus v0.6, Emacs/22.0.95.6 (2007-03-18), Fedora 6 gnu/linux |
I CC the list.
On 2007-03-22, Eddward DeVilla said:
> On 3/22/07, Leo <address@hidden> 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)