Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-09 Thread Bastien
D writes: > I fully understand, though I do believe that this change is beneficial > to the way org-forward-heading-same-level works overall, in a "principle > of least astonishment" sort of way. Yes, that's why I allowed this exception, but still, I think it's best to leave the FIXME for

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-09 Thread Bastien
Ihor Radchenko writes: >> I applied a small variant of it as a700fadd7, thanks. >> >> (See also the comment I added with f17d301e1, which basically means >> that such changes are made as exceptions.) > > For record, the old behaviour did not only affect a single external > package. For example,

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-08 Thread Ihor Radchenko
> I applied a small variant of it as a700fadd7, thanks. > > (See also the comment I added with f17d301e1, which basically means > that such changes are made as exceptions.) For record, the old behaviour did not only affect a single external package. For example,

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-08 Thread D
Hi Bastien, > I applied a small variant of it as a700fadd7, thanks. thank you! > (See also the comment I added with f17d301e1, which basically means > that such changes are made as exceptions.) I fully understand, though I do believe that this change is beneficial to the way

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-08 Thread Bastien
Hi D, D writes: >> Then, can as well use `mapcar', or even simply manual loop over line >> positions. > > How about this? I applied a small variant of it as a700fadd7, thanks. (See also the comment I added with f17d301e1, which basically means that such changes are made as exceptions.) --

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-07 Thread D
> Then, can as well use `mapcar', or even simply manual loop over line > positions. How about this? >From 2324d745f12fe8e8d4f7864307eb55c46fc49504 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "D. Williams" Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:13:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] org.el: let heading navigation check the entire

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-07 Thread Ihor Radchenko
> Can you try the attached patch and tell wether it fixes your issue? The patch will fail in the following headline, because of invisible last char: * [[file:test.el][test]] In general, we can only guarantee that partially visible headline is not skipped only if we check all the positions. Or

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-06 Thread Bastien
Hi, D writes: >> Does it fix a problem for org-superstar-mode or a more general problem >> in Org? > > It mostly fixes an org-superstar-mode problem (see > https://github.com/integral-dw/org-superstar-mode/issues/19). Can you try the attached patch and tell wether it fixes your issue? >> If

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-06 Thread D
Hi, > Does it fix a problem for org-superstar-mode or a more general problem > in Org? It mostly fixes an org-superstar-mode problem (see https://github.com/integral-dw/org-superstar-mode/issues/19). > Why do you need to check the visibility status every character in the > headline (even for

Re: [PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-09-06 Thread Bastien
D writes: >> Probably, it is easier if you just use seq-every-p instead of >> mapcar on (number-sequence max-pos min-pos -1). The result of >> seq-every-p will be inverse of the currently used expression. > > Oh yeah, that's much nicer. I also made the predicate check > right-to-left, which

[PATCH] Re: Re: Re: org-forward-heading-same-level and the invisible-ok argument

2020-08-30 Thread D
> Probably, it is easier if you just use seq-every-p instead of > mapcar on (number-sequence max-pos min-pos -1). The result of > seq-every-p will be inverse of the currently used expression. Oh yeah, that's much nicer. I also made the predicate check right-to-left, which just causes it to check