[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking depen
From: |
Ihor Radchenko |
Subject: |
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:59:33 +0800 |
Christophe Schockaert <R3vLibre@citadels.eu> writes:
> (my wish would be to have a robust way to handle multilines formating,
> but that’s on another topic going on ^^)
>
> I don’t know what’s the usual process : can’t we file an issue to track
> it, and write down the options we have, then decide the outcome of it
> (either development, or documenting options and ideas) ?
Just drop an email with appropriate subject.
> Regarding the checkbox state, I wanted to have the impression of
> maintainers, but I felt that choosing the character would not be easy to
> handle not only for development, but even for reading documents from
> different sources (custom TODO states have a meaning that we can infer,
> but a single letter seems harder).
>
> As an after thought, about the "[C]" proposal, I wonder if it would not
> be better to have a symbol, as "[X]" is not used for the letter, but for
> the cross, same for the "space" and the "dash" which express "halfway
> through". I didn’t have any idea the other day, but meanwhile, I have
> come first with "[~]" which sounds like a wave and thus is not firm, and
> is also a bitwise NOT in some programming languages. Or, thinking about
> the "NOT", I thought about "[!]" which is a NOT (not done) and also
> quite expressive. The only thing is that it is quite catching attention,
> like if we need to pay attention for something that was probably not
> that important since we cancelled it :) I could not find many other
> options, as I feel we need to stick to ASCII for a solution.
>
>
> WDYT ?
I think that choosing a character is of a secondary importance. It can be
easily adjusted once we have a working code. Getting the working code is
much harder though. Someone™ will need to submit a patch first.
--
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92
- Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/12
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/12
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Marcin Borkowski, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Christophe Schockaert, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/14
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Christophe Schockaert, 2022/09/15
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency,
Ihor Radchenko <=
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/19
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Daniel Fleischer, 2022/09/14
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Bastien, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Tim Cross, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Bastien, 2022/09/24
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/24