[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking depen
From: |
Ihor Radchenko |
Subject: |
Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:46:00 +0800 |
Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
> +1. As usual, I'm concerned about over engineering and over
> complicating matters for corner cases. As you correctly point out,
> implementing something here is likely to force a specific interpretation
> of cancelled with may not fit with other interpretations.
For reference, I am seeing this feature as a step towards better
modularity of org-list.el. 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)
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.
--
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, (continued)
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Christophe Schockaert, 2022/09/13
- 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 <=
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Bastien, 2022/09/24
- Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency, Milan Zamazal, 2022/09/24