[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking depen
From: |
Bastien |
Subject: |
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:03:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Daniel Fleischer <danflscr@gmail.com> writes:
> At first it makes sense, but we do have headlines and TODO keywords to
> express different states, colors and even sets of states. This is just a
> checklist construct. I think if I wanted to mark something as canceled
> or not relevant I would do something like this:
>
> - [ ] this is important.
> - [X] +canceled+ this is not important.
>
> or even strike through everything.
FWIW, I use this:
- [X] +This task will probably be canceled+
I don't think we should implement a new status for canceled tasks.
On top of the implementation (C-u C-u C-u C-c C-c ?), I believe it
is more flexible to be able to let canceled tasks block the whole
set of tasks---or not. So both these tasks seem useful to me:
- [X] +A canceled task+
- [-] +A canceled task+
Implementing "canceled tasks" will probably force one interpretation
over another, we lose in flexibility and readability.
2 cts,
--
Bastien
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency,
Bastien <=
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Tim Cross, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/22
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Bastien, 2022/09/24
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/24