Nicolas Goaziou <> writes:

> Hello,
> Rasmus <> writes:
>> Can you try the attached patch?  It seems to work on my system, but
>> probably more cleanup should be made wrt the "old" outline-functions.
>> +                      (org-with-wide-buffer
>> +                       (org-next-visible-heading 1)
>> +                       (point)))))
> You shouldn't use `org-next-visible-heading' as statistics cookie
> updates shouldn't depend on current visibility.

That's why I used org-with-wide-buffer.  But perhaps a better solution
would be an org-next-heading or whatever, that considered inlinetasks.

> Also, the problem is more subtle: you have to check if you're within an
> inlinetask, in which case you don't want to use
> `org-with-limited-levels' or not.

Is that saying that org-with-wide-buffer is no good here?

> Anyway, we could fix it in another way. Eric's example,
>   - [ ] the first task
>   *************** This is something to note
>   *************** END
>   - [ ] another list of tasks
> is misleading because it's really the same list, i.e., inlinetasks are
> allowed in items, so "This is something to note" belongs to "the first
> task".
> So, our option is to simply dis-allow inlinetasks in plain lists. That
> would also solve the issue.

It solves the problem, unless Eric wants inlinetasks in his list.  The
"solution" in my other patch recognized both checkboxes.


I haven't needed inlinetasks in lists.  So I don't care much.  Better wait
for Eric's opinion.


I feel emotional landscapes they puzzle me

Reply via email to