On Sunday, 17 May 2015 at 21:44, Rasmus wrote:
> Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>> I'm not sure I understand what is misleading about the above?  The note
>> is indeed intended to belong to the first item on the list.
> The misleading part, IMO, is that it is not obvious whether the
> inlinetasks belong to the list item or not.  Normally something that
> belong to the item in indented, which is not possible here.

I guess, for me, the "inline" part of the name indicates that this
element is always part of the surrounding element?  Of course, this
doesn't mean the parser treats it as such and it looks like it doesn't.

>> However, we are starting to see that inline tasks are indeed a bit of
>> kludge and impact on org structures significantly so maybe we can remove
>> this capability once inline annotations, as discussed in another thread,
>> are implemented?
> FWIW, I did not like the syntax Nicolas suggested in that thread.  It
> reminded me too much of *XML (which is also true with inlinetasks BTW).
> [I, did, however, only add a star to the thread rather than replying].

I'm not too bothered with the syntax.  I can get used to (almost)
anything.  However, as I and others have commented in the inline
annotations thread, there is some worry about the syntax become too
overbearing in the attempt to have it do too much.

Back to inline tasks in lists, for the checkbox use case, I can easily
use special environments instead of inline tasks.  In general, however,
I would still like to be able to use inline tasks within lists.


: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 24.4.1, Org release_8.3beta-1136-g0e7062

Reply via email to