Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Bastien <address@hidden> writes:

>> For example, white spaces after an object still belong to an
>> object.
>
> Well, this is counterintuitive.

So they should belong to the next object? I don't find it more
intuitive. Anyway, it's an internal representation for white spaces so
it doesn't matter here. See next answer.

>> So in the following case:
>>
>>   [[http://orgmode.org]]   [[http://duckduckgo.com]]
>>
>> using C-c C-o between the two links will open the first one, but there:
>>
>>   [[http://orgmode.org]] and [[http://duckduckgo.com]]
>>
>> C-c C-o on the "and" will open the second one.
>
> This current behavior is surprising too here, and only predictable for
> users who know that whitespaces are part of the previous object -- i.e.
> nobody.

That's not a problem, it is easy to remove this. C-c C-o will do nothing
on white spaces after an object.

>> Also in the following example:
>>
>>   [fn:1] This is some text [[http://orgmode.org]]
>>
>> C-c C-o on "some" currently triggers `org-footnote-action' since point
>> is in a footnote definition.
>
> Which is counterintuitive too!

It was part of the specs of the _previous_ implementation. I didn't
change anything here.

But it can be removed.

>> But with the behaviour you describe, it would be hard to predict
>> whether it should move to the link or still open the footnote.
>
> Let me describe the behavior I favor:
>
>   C-c C-o opens the link at point (i.e. "the link that the cursor is
>   visibly on")

This is already the case (minus the trailing spaces situation)

> or the next link on the same line.

Not really possible, as explained before. And not intuitive, IMO.

>   When on a headline

This is the case.

> and if there are several links on the same line, prompt the user for
> which one she wants to visit.

Come on. This wasn't done even in the previous implementation.

> I find it very simple and predictable.

The only really predictable behaviour is: "open the link under point".
Everything else is arguable.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou