[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking depen
From: |
Karl Voit |
Subject: |
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Sep 2022 10:07:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) |
Hi Ihor,
* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> wrote:
> Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:
>
>> I was using list checkboxes like that:
>> - [ ] open task
>> - [X] closed task
>> - [-] cancelled task
>
> From the manual (5.6 Checkboxes):
>
> ‘C-c C-x C-b’ (‘org-toggle-checkbox’)
> Toggle checkbox status or—with prefix argument—checkbox presence at
> point. With double prefix argument, set it to ‘[-]’, which is
> considered to be an intermediate state.
>
> [-] is not considered done by our conventions
>
> Here is an example of a checkbox list.
>
> * TODO Organize party [2/4]
> - [-] call people [1/3]
> - [ ] Peter
> - [X] Sarah
> - [ ] Sam
> - [X] order food
> - [ ] think about what music to play
> - [X] talk to the neighbors
Yes, that makes sense. [-] is not a candidate for a cancelled
checkbox for that reason. :-(
>> (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
>
> As you can see, we already have conflicting convention, and we cannot
> change it without breaking backwards compatibility.
>
> `org-block-todo-from-checkboxes', currently uses
>
> (org-list-search-forward
> (concat (org-item-beginning-re)
> "\\(?:\\[@\\(?:start:\\)?\\([0-9]+\\|[A-Za-z]\\)\\][
> \t]*\\)?"
> "\\[[- ]\\]")
> end t)
>
> as a condition that some list items are marked incomplete.
>
> So, you can use something like
> - [C] cancelled task
>
> But beware that this is an internal implementation detail that might be
> changed in future unless we decide to document the existing behaviour.
In that case, I prefer not to depend on that internal detail and
start using +[ ]+ as a workaround which causes the parser to not
detect a checkbox at all, as far as I understood.
Thanks for clarification.
If we wanted to introduce a cancelled checkbox state, it seems to be
the case that this would require a new approach like [/] or similar.
Is it only me who is thinking that a non-blocking cancelled checkbox
state would be a good idea?
--
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, 2022/09/12
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Bastien, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/22