Re: [O] Alternatives to inlinetasks? [was: Problems created by inlinetasks in agenda views]

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I would be interested to discuss a better solution.  It would be nice is
>> list items could be TODO's, but I though long and har about this back when,
>> and over allo those years, I could not think of anything that could be
>> implemented with reasonable effort.
>
> I think we have to make inline tasks more limited, yet still useful.
>
> One major technical drawback stems from the fact that they allow
> contents.
>
>
>   *************** Foo
>   ...
>   *************** END
>
> It means that they allow, e.g., properties (it hurts inheritance), or
> clocks that do not belong to the containing headline but to the inline
> task itself... It would be a major pain if we had to handle this
> seriously, as a core feature.
>
> Now, if we allow them to have no contents, it becomes much more
> manageable. It means we can still have TODO, tags, priority, but no
> clock, no properties, no log...

Would there be any consideration for an inline syntax that looks more
like a link? Personally, when I want inline TODOs, I want them because
there's a particular chunk of text that I need to do something with.
What about something that looks like:

In 2005 there were approximately [[TODO: Verify this; SCHEDULED:
<tomorrow>; :statistics:][4,500]] Confucius Institutes in operation
worldwide.

That's kind of made-up, but the one-line syntax seems like it would be
well suited to providing tags, priority, scheduling, etc., but none of
the more bulky attributes that are part of a proper headline.

WDYT?

Eric