Thorsten Jolitz <tjol...@gmail.com> writes: > it happened again [...]- François Pinard already had a fully fledged > implementation of my "new" org-mode feature: 'org-weights.el'
You're quite generous when you say "full fledged" :-). There are many details in which I find org-weights.el unsatisfactory, but as it is sufficient as it stands for my day-to-day usage, I'm not overly pushing on it (the pun is purely accidental). > | * Header 1 * 2 + 1... > | ## * Header 1 [#1] I find the "* 2 + 1" far too verbose, in that it uses too much horizontal space, I much prefer the compact aspect of "[#1]". What would be ideal, but I do not know if it can be organized, would keep the weights or hidden-lines information always glued to the ellipsis, and not hiding any underlying text as org-weights currently does. On the other hand, there are some virtue to the vertical alignment of weight information. Sigh! Nothing is perfect... > [...] shows the overlay-info for *all* headlines except the one where > point is on. That exception is a sad and questionable workaround, for being able to edit the current line. When, in normal and standard Org mode, I edit a line which has an ellipsis at the end, I may edit the line like any other one without seeing undesired effects. org-weights should be equally capable, and there should be no reason (ideally) to hide the information for the line where the point is, merely for editing to work. > one problem I hit is that a visibility change does not uptdate all > cookies/weights at once, they are only updated headline per headline > when point is moved up and down. Is that for performance reasons? See the Caveats section at the end of org-weights documentation. Normally, the information to be updated may be minimized to the header above the line holding point, and then, recursively up. But there is a bug in this optimization when a header is demoted (as explained in Caveats). Another performance-related detail is the quadratic behaviour which may be seen in big, deeply nested Org files: it could be avoided by cleverly saving (in a hidden way) information on computations already done, and reusing it instead of recomputing it many times. But as usual with most cached optimization, it is difficult to get fully right. François