Re: org-todo-keywords and task sequence

[David Masterson]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

F> David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords.
>> In particular, I can only think of the following simple sequence as
>> being possible in org-todo-keywords:
>>
>> TODO -> IN-PROCESS -> DONE
>>
>> If I want to add in (say) WAITING, the graph (represented as a table)
>> becomes:
>>
>> i\o  | TODO | IN-P | WAIT | DONE
>> TODO |  N   |  Y   |  N   |  N
>> IN-P |  N   |  N   |  Y   |  Y
>> WAIT |  N   |  Y   |  N   |  N
>> DONE |  N   |  N   |  N   |  N
>
> The main purpose of the keyword sequences is working on tasks in steps.
> When a keyword is a part of sequence, you can just use S-<right>
> S-<left> to progress the task. For example:
>
> NEXT -> DOING -> REVIEW -> DONE 
>
> Such sequence is only making sense when everything goes "as usual" with
> a task and you do not want to think about which keyword to assign.
>
> The transition IN-PROGRESS -> WAIT is something you have to decide
> consciously. Org cannot just read you mind and change IN-PROGRESS to
> WAIT. You will have set such transition manually.
>
> For your table, you can try something like
>
> #+TODO: WAIT IN-PROCESS
> #+TODO: TODO IN-PROCESS | DONE

This is on a per-file basis, correct?  This can't be done in
org-todo-keywords? 

> Note, however, that moving S-<left> will be ambiguous.

Ambiguous or not possible?

Perhaps there should be a sparse table var to represent the table above
and drop sequence?  More flexible?  Org-Edna?

-- 
David Masterson