Greg Minshall <minsh...@umich.edu> writes:
> hi, all. > > David Rogers <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Am I crazy to say that your last example of unwanted behavior is >> easier for me to read and understand? (and to me the common >> indenting is a hopeless mess?) > > yes, in fact, the "new" way sort of has the buffer indentation match > that of the outline structure of the file (specified by asterisks). > there's a lot to be said for that. (though, obviously, it's not what > everyone would want.) > > if the new mode stays as the standard, maybe we'd want to capture an > asterisk typed immediately after a newline that would (by default), put > that line-beginning asterisk back in column one? > I think this would be a great improvement. It is probably more comon that that when you type an asterisk as the first character in the line you want it to be a header and therefore, in the first column. On rare occasions when you do want an asterisk at the beginning of the line, you can indent it manually. > otherwise, this is what one gets (without remembering to do a C-j > instead of <RET>): > ----- > * i wanted a headline<RET> > * i wanted a subhead, but it's ignored by org mode > ----- > which is maybe not optimal? > > in most non-org modes (including in Org Src... buffers, and in org files > when writing org-mode lists), i'm a big fan of electric indent mode. > > maybe an org-specific setting, "org-file-indent-follows-structure"? if > true, it means the user wants to have a "raw" org document laid out > according to the outline structure of the document. if false, it means > one, in general, wants the org file laid out with left-alignment (or, > right, in right-to-left) languages (not including embedded lists, and > whatever else i might be ignoring). > Seems like a reasonable approach to me. -- Tim Cross
