alain.coch...@unistra.fr writes:
> Ihor Radchenko writes on Sun 3 Sep 2023 07:58:
>
> > 3. We require no less than 15 stars to define inlinetask, which
> >looks ugly.
>
> With org-indent-mode, only 2 stars are shown (which I don't find
> ugly). Hence an idea: how about an additional
>
Ihor Radchenko writes on Sun 3 Sep 2023 07:58:
> 3. We require no less than 15 stars to define inlinetask, which
>looks ugly.
With org-indent-mode, only 2 stars are shown (which I don't find
ugly). Hence an idea: how about an additional
org-indent-mode-just-for-inlinetasks?, for those
Maske writes:
> I am sorry, I don't know the appropriate terminology.
>
>
> Could be used
>
> *** END
> or a different special string, to end any headline scope? Like an "end
> parenthesis" for the headline just above it.
> ...
> Maybe in this way, all headlines would be the same:
Hi
I am sorry, I don't know the appropriate terminology.
Could be used
*** END
or a different special string, to end any headline scope? Like an "end
parenthesis" for the headline just above it.
Maybe in this way, all headlines would be the same: if the special
string
Hi, Adams
In an org block:
- You can't use directly the org-mode keybinding.
- Visually, by default, it is different from the other headlines.
- When exporting, by default, it doesn't seem appropriate for reading.
- When inserting, by default, it is not as easy as inlinetasks are.
I will
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>> And what about drawers? Don't they fit the idea of "detached" element?
>
> But drawers would not serve as a "detached section"... Although they are
> certainly very versatile. I usually use drawers to export as small
> "containers". And when I don't export them,
Russell Adams writes:
> That said, I think the question is would any code for interpreting
> embedded org source blocks be cleaner than the existing inline task code.
I disagree. Src blocks are usually excluded from agendas and other
normal Org interactions - they are normally considered
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 05:08:40PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:39:50PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> > Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 16:31:
> >
> > > > What would be the equivalent of:
> > > >
> > > >* head :foo:
> > > >***
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:39:50PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 16:31:
>
> > > What would be the equivalent of:
> > >
> > >* head :foo:
> > >*** inlt :bar:
> > >*** END
> > >
> > > where the 'bar' tag
Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 16:31:
> > What would be the equivalent of:
> >
> >* head :foo:
> >*** inlt :bar:
> >*** END
> >
> > where the 'bar' tag could be used in exactly the same way as the 'foo'
> > tag.
> Please give some examples of
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:06:51PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 14:36:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:49:26PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> > > Russell Adams writes on Tue 29 Aug 2023 15:00:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at
Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 14:36:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:49:26PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> > Russell Adams writes on Tue 29 Aug 2023 15:00:
> > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
> > > > Why not just put the TODO heading in a
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:49:26PM +0200, alain.coch...@unistra.fr wrote:
> Russell Adams writes on Tue 29 Aug 2023 15:00:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
> > > Why not just put the TODO heading in a code block with type org?
> > >
> > > Then you get all the
Russell Adams writes on Tue 29 Aug 2023 15:00:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
> > Why not just put the TODO heading in a code block with type org?
> >
> > Then you get all the toys, ignored by the main file.
>
> If inline tasks are supposed to be Org
On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
> Why not just put the TODO heading in a code block with type org?
>
> Then you get all the toys, ignored by the main file.
If inline tasks are supposed to be Org enabled headings, but NOT
treated like headings in the current file,
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Although, the name "inlinetask" is actually awkward in such use case.
> Something like inlinesection would fit better. Or inlineheading.
Completely agree. I like inlinesection and inlineheading equally.
> And what about drawers? Don't they fit the idea of "detached"
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> Ihor Radchenko writes:
>
>> In other words, it is not the section itself, but other
>> headline/inlinetask features, like todo keywords, tags, planning. Right?
>
> No, it is the section itself (or the concept of "section", with its toys
> in Org, of course) that is
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> In other words, it is not the section itself, but other
> headline/inlinetask features, like todo keywords, tags, planning. Right?
No, it is the section itself (or the concept of "section", with its toys
in Org, of course) that is important to me in this case. I am not
On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 05:31:46PM +, Juan Manuel Macías wrote:
> Ihor Radchenko writes:
>
> *** TODO anonsec :tag:
> Content that has neither a title nor a section number.
> *** END
>
> and a construction that for the purposes of parceling out the text
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>> Why not simply
>>
>> #+begin_anonsection
>> ...
>> #+end_anonsection
>>
>> ?
> ... The problem is the LaTeX side. Since there is no
> support for anonymous sections in LaTeX (I seem to remember that some
> special class like Koma had some command to introduce
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Why not simply
>
> #+begin_anonsection
> ...
> #+end_anonsection
>
> ?
Because with an inlinetask I can have something like this:
*** TODO anonsec :tag:
Content that has neither a title nor a section number.
*** END
and a
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>> Do you mean section in LaTeX sense or in Org sense?
>
> In Org sense, I think. If an author adds an 'anonymous' break (through
> some customary symbol) and continues writing, the content that follows
> belongs (for Org) to the current section. By using an
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>> I think that would not be expected, since an anonymous section is just a
>> break in the text that has neither a title nor a section number.
>> ... Anonymous breaks using asterisks or other symbols is usually the applied
>> remedy. The
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>>
>> May they contain sub-sections?
>
> I think that would not be expected, since an anonymous section is just a
> break in the text that has neither a title nor a section number.
> ... Anonymous breaks using asterisks or other symbols is usually the applied
> remedy.
Ihor Radchenko writes:
>> ... They
>> behave like a true section, except that they are not headed by titles or
>> level numbers.
>
> May they contain sub-sections?
I think that would not be expected, since an anonymous section is just a
break in the text that has neither a title nor a section
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> I think inlinetasks may also have a use for those sections that are not
> "nested". In typography they are usually called "anonymous sections" and
> they are separated by some symbol (asterisks, dinkus[1], etc.).
This is a very interesting idea. Thanks for sharing!
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> 1. Inlinetasks should be exported as "boxes" - something similar to
>margin or inline notes
>- Can be used as a memo TODO in draft publication printout
>- As Samuel suggested, inlinetasks could be a basis of review
> comments - like what GDocs/Office
Bastien Guerry writes:
> I suggest removing the support for inline tasks *as they are designed
> today*, yes.
What I have in mind is slightly different: Keep inlinetasks for now and
implement a better alternative, which we can hopefully come up with in
this discussion. Later, promote the
28 matches
Mail list logo
