[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] C-c ^ for plain lists? Why not?

From: James Harkins
Subject: Re: [O] C-c ^ for plain lists? Why not?
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:27:00 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Playing with this idea I noticed that the sorting function
> did not accept their additional arguments like sorting-key
> and get key-function in they way they should.  So I patched
> them, to make the following work in the current master:
> (defun org-sort-list-by-checkbox-type ()
>   "Sort list items according to Checkbox state."
>   (interactive)
>   (org-sort-list
>    nil ?f
>    (lambda ()
>      (if (looking-at org-list-full-item-re)
>        (cdr (assoc (match-string 3)
>                    '(("[X]" . 1) ("[-]" . 2) ("[ ]" . 3) (nil . 4))))
>        4))))

I finally had a chance to play with this -- works nicely, except I managed to 
get emacs into an infinite loop this way:

1. C-c ^ f org-sort-list-by-checkbox-type
2. This puts the done items at the top, which I didn't want, so... C-c ^ F org-
3. Emacs goes into a tailspin (recovered by C-g).

> I would think that 
>     checked - transitionary - unchecked - no box
> is a pretty decent default.  

I disagree. I'd suggest unchecked - transitionary - checked - no box. It makes 
more sense to pull the not-done items to the top, no?

But it's easy to modify the function for my environment. Thanks!!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]