[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependenc
From: |
Karl Voit |
Subject: |
Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:40:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) |
Hi,
I was using list checkboxes like that:
- [ ] open task
- [X] closed task
- [-] cancelled task
The latter one is supported via C-u C-u C-c C-c.
However, when I'm using:
(setq org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies t)
... any [-] checkbox will be regarded as non-finished contrary to
the behavior of TODO/DONE/CANCELLED heading states.
As a workaround, I may use:
- +[ ]+ cancelled task
... but this is tedious.
Therefore I'm asking if this might be a viable syntax change:
handling [-] list items similar to CANCELLED headings as
non-blocking when used with org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies.
Tested with Org mode version 9.5.3.
--
get mail|git|SVN|photos|postings|SMS|phonecalls|RSS|CSV|XML into Org-mode:
> get Memacs from https://github.com/novoid/Memacs <
Personal Information Management > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/pim/
Emacs-related > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/emacs/
- Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency,
Karl Voit <=
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/12
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Marcin Borkowski, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Christophe Schockaert, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/13
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/14
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Christophe Schockaert, 2022/09/15
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/16
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Karl Voit, 2022/09/19
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Daniel Fleischer, 2022/09/14