[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] Bug: Several small documentation problems [8.3.6 (8.3.6-4-g4835b

From: Jorge
Subject: Re: [O] Bug: Several small documentation problems [8.3.6 (8.3.6-4-g4835be-elpaplus @ /home/jorge/.emacs.d/elpa/org-plus-contrib-20160926/)]
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:36:37 -0300

On 29 September 2016 at 17:36, Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think "grandparent" is correct. In the following document
>   * H1
>   ** H2
>   Text<--point
> "H2" is the parent headline of "Text" and as a consequence, "H1" is its
> grandparent.
What if point is in the headline, which is often the case?  Besides the
docstring is inconsistent:
      With two universal prefix arguments, insert the heading at the end
      of the grandparent subtree.  For example, if point is within a
      2nd-level heading, then it will insert a 2nd-level heading at the
      end of the 1st-level parent heading.

In the first sentence it says "grandparent subtree", whereas in the second
sentence it says "parent heading".  And the manual says "parent":
      Calling this command with `C-u C-u' will unconditionally respect
      the headline's content and create a new item at the end of the
      parent subtree.

Perhaps uniformity of terminology would help here.

> You are right, M-RET and C-RET are confusing, and making C-u M-RET
> a duplicate of C-RET is wasting some important keybinding. This was
> discussed on this ML already (with Rasmus) but led nowhere so far.
> In any case, it is more future-proof to not insist on the fact that
> C-RET is C-u M-RET.
I think that, whether we describe both behaviors separately or tell
the user that
C-RET is equivalent to C-u M-RET, the commitment (to not change the behavior)
is the same.  But if you still think that describing both separately is more
future-proof, I won't argue.

But I still ask you to look at the other points I made about that manual
section: that it doesn't adequately explain the effect of C-u M-RET, and that
the description of C-RET is actually wrong.

> Thank you for this tedious, yet very important work.
Thank you very much for working on Org!

• I am Brazilian.  I hope my English is correct and I welcome corrections.
• Please adopt free formats like PDF, ODF, Org, LaTeX, Opus, WebM and 7z.
• Free (as in free speech) software for Android: https://f-droid.org/

reply via email to

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