> Might as well just use org-with-wide-buffer I think. Ah, didn't know about that one. Sounds good, will try it.
> But that will do exactly the opposite of what `org-fold-show-subtree' does, won't it? I thought `org-fold-show-subtree' was there because various later commands wouldn't work well if the tree was folded. In which case it could be closed when done. Is that not the purpose? On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 3:45 AM Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote: > Benjamin McMillan <mcmilla...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> We cannot use `without-restriction' because it is only available since > >> Emacs 29, while we still support Emacs 28. > > > > Got it! Will use (save-restriction (widen) ...) instead. > > Might as well just use org-with-wide-buffer I think. > > >> More importantly, this will likely break > >> 44e7ed1a59c8587c2d5c3a54917576f1505a6c7b that purposely calls > >> `narrow-to-subtree'. Your `without-restriction' removes that > >> narrowing. > > > > I don't really use datetrees, and don't know the reasoning for > > `org-narrow-to-subtree' there. I worry I might break it without > > understanding. But anyways, I think it makes sense to place the > > `save-restriction' starting before the `org-narrow-to-subtree' and ending > > when we exit the archive buffer, so I don't see how it would conflict > with > > the narrow to subtree. > > Looks right. What narrowing certainly affects is jumps to (point-min) and > (point-max), which change once we narrow/widen the buffer. > > > Even deleting the `org-fold-show-all' I was not able to recreate the bug > > mentioned in that commit. > > However, there is also a call to `org-fold-show-subtree', which I don't > > think should be removed. For this reason, it may still make sense to wrap > > everything with `org-fold-core-save-visibility'. > > ... > > In fact, a possibly better solution is to not worry about preserving > > folding and instead, at the end of archiving, fold closed the archive > > subtree. It seems that one wouldn't typically want to look at a heading > > that was just archived. Well, if that would break other people's > workflow, > > we could leave it as is, but this last option would be my preference. > > But that will do exactly the opposite of what `org-fold-show-subtree' > does, won't it? > > -- > Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, > Org mode maintainer, > 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> >
