Re: Should we extend org-catch-invisible-edits to more interactive commands? (was: Catching invisible edits: problem understanding doc)

[Alain . Cochard]

Ihor Radchenko writes on Fri 10 Feb 2023 09:56:

 > Only a handful of interactive commands support invisible edit
 > checks. In particular: self-insert-command (typing), deleting char
 > forward/backward, and `org-meta-return'.
 > 
 > I guess we may instead provide a defcustom and hook the check into
 > `pre-command-hook'. Would it be of interest?

Thank you for the feedback.  Let me add that the issue I raised was
not at all a theoretical/abstract one for me.  I constantly use 'undo'
to see where in the buffer I was working (then, I insert a space, do
'undo undo', and can resume what I was doing).  So obviously it would
be of a huge interest for me if org-catch-invisible-edits worked in
that case...

At any rate, shouldn't "2.2.3 Catching invisible edits" be a little
bit more specific about what kind of invisible edits are concerned?
Or perhaps just a warning that it is not all of them.



 > > PS: a very minor incidental point: after 'bar' has disappeared, the
 > > headline is then void, so I tend to say that the ellipsis should
 > > immediately disappear as well.
 > 
 > The headline still contains newlines.

Right.  Thanks.

-- 
EOST (École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre) 
ITE (Institut Terre & Environnement) | alain.cochard@unistra.fr
5 rue René Descartes   [bureau 110]  | Phone: +33 (0)3 68 85 50 44 
F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France     | [ slot available for rent ]