Re: Provide org-insert-subitem

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

>> S-RET already "copy down" a table cells, so I'm really suggesting a
>> generalization of the current keybinding.
>
> This makes sense.
>
>> - S-RET on a list item calls `org-insert-subitem`, a new command.
>
> Did you mean `org-clone-item'?

Yes, sorry (`org-clone-item' is better than `org-item-copy-down', the
other idea that comes naturally.)

>> - C-M-RET on a heading calls `org-insert-subheading', the existing
>>   command.
>>
>> - C-M-RET on a list item calls `org-insert-subitem', a new command.
>>
>> I like C-M-RET better than S-RET because inserting a subheading is
>> like a "subkey" or inserting a heading.
>
> I tried to play around a bit with various flavours of X-<RET> commands
> and I am not sure if I like C-M-RET:
>
> 1. For org-insert-heading, we have multiple variants that allow
>    inserting heading at point, after current subtree, and the same
>    variants for TODO heading. We don't have enough key combinations left
>    to allow all the equivalents for subheadings.
>
> 2. With `org-cycle-level-after-item/entry-creation' set to t (default),
>    it is actually very easy to create a subheading/subitem using the
>    available C/M-[S]-<RET> commands. Just do M-<RET> <TAB>. And the same
>    will work for inserting todo headings.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here: do you say that we don't
need to find a keybinding for `org-insert-subheading/subitem' because
it is already easy enough to insert a subheading/item using a certain
combinaison of commands?

Or do you suggest we need to find another prefix than "C-M-"? Which
one?

What matter the most to me here is the consistency of commands, but if
the keybindings can reflect that, all the better.

-- 
 Bastien