[Orgmode] Re: Advice sought on managing decision alternatives.

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Tom,

On Feb 6, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

> > Hi Tom,
> > [...]
>
> > WIth you patch, we have right now
> >
> > CHOOSE    as the prefix
> > choseness as the interpretation
> > org-decision as the name of the module.
> >
> > My request would be to maybe use `choose' also as the
> > interpretation symbol, or, alternatively, CHOSENESS
> > as the prefix.
>
> Yes.  I think "choose" is best; the ambiguity between "chosenness" and
> "choseness" just invited difficulties.
>
> Always feel free to suggest alternatives to my naming.  Sometimes my
> initial ideas go in a funny direction.  Eg, my initial thinking,  
> which I
> now abandon, was:
>
> * org-DECISIONS.el because it supports decisions.
> * CHOSENNESS because it's the property the item has of being chosen  
> or not.
>   As William observed, it's grammatically correct but rare.
> * CHOOSE because I saw that CHOSENNESS has problems.
>
> So "choose" it is.  I'd like to rename the file org-choose.el as  
> well, now
> that I think about the naming.

Good.

> Do you want a patch for it?


Yes, against current org.el, please, if you do not mind,
because I have not yet applied your earlier patch.

> > For customizing org-todo-keywords, instead of explicitly
> > offering `choseness', maybe we can use a symbol field
> > where people can type into.
>
> It's more flexible but offers less support to the user.  Maybe we  
> can have
> the best of both worlds by restricting the choice to interpretations  
> that
> available modules support.  Ie, something like this:
>
> * Object: a variable that holds the names of the interpretation  
> symbols,
> or of the ones that aren't built in.
> * Behavior: interested modules add their interpretation symbol to  
> the list
> * Behavior: When customizing org-todo-keywords, offer the symbols from
>   that list as choices for interpretation symbols.

This sounds perfect.

> The primary difficulty would be getting widgets to understand that.

Yes.  Right now, I do not know how to do this, therefore
my more primitive proposal. Yours is better, if you can
make the widget work...

- Carsten

> > That would turn your patch into a generally useful system
> > of hooks where other ideas could be implemented as well.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Tom Breton (Tehom)