Hi Rasmus, On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> wrote: > Hi Puneeth, > > Thanks for the followup. > > Puneeth Chaganti <puncha...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> wrote: >>> It's not obvious that org should change a—potentially—carefully selected >>> narrowed region. >> >> I agree. But, am I not explicitly asking to jump to the specified >> item. I don't mind the widening, at least when the call is >> interactive. I agree with you when some other code is calling it, >> though. > > I see your point, but I also remember being quite annoyed in the past when > I lost my narrow because of e.g. inserting a footnote.
I see. >>> Perhaps you could mimic the way org-edit-special works for this case. >> >> You mean, display the entry in a new buffer, and any changes will be >> applied onto the original entry too? > > Yeah, I would prefer that. Would that work for you or would still prefer > to have your buffer widened? I agree that widening a buffer that was narrowed on purpose can be annoying, sometimes. Most times, I think I wouldn't mind the widening. That said, I'm not quite sure what is the right fix for this. I find it weird to have a subtly different thing happening depending on whether or not the target buffer is narrowed -- entry shown in normal buffer when no narrowing vs. entry shown in a special/indirect buffer. Also, given that no other part of org really uses indirect buffers, I don't know if this function alone should make use of that feature. Let me know what you think. -- Puneeth PS: I've patched my org sources to do indirect buffers for this, and will try it out for sometime to see how it feels.
