[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: |
Sun, 25 Sep 2022 04:59:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
> For reference, I am seeing this feature as a step towards better
> modularity of org-list.el.
Modularity is good if we have use-cases for it, at least one feature
relying on it. I wouldn't implement a feature just to add modularity.
> The current list code is rather monolithic
> and leaves no room for user customization of the commands. (Also, see
> recent discussions about converting between lists and headings
> https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/877d4luxb8.fsf@localhost/
> https://orgmode.org/list/877d3k70lu.fsf@localhost)
I'm not convinced the first report is a bug in the way list are
handled. The second is a bug in the way headings are transformed as
list items (leaving footnotes in a poor state). If more modularity
helps fixing these edge cases, then why not.
> Even if we do not provide "canceled" items in lists, having an
> infrastructure to customize list commands better will be a good thing to
> have.
Of course, I guess you can think of useful customization of list
commands -- perhaps that what we should think about first: would it be
a good thing to allow customization of list commands? what use-case?
2 cts,
--
Bastien
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, (continued)
- 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
- 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 <=
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/24