Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> 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. > WDYT? I haven't needed inlinetasks in lists. So I don't care much. Better wait for Eric's opinion. —Rasmus -- I feel emotional landscapes they puzzle me