On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:58 AM Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Calls in code base do not matter, since we can change them. The above > Sexp would be equivalent to > > (org-set-tags 'current) > Correct. I was just extrapolating based on that, that people could be making similar uses in their configs and packages. A search like this ( https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22org-set-tags+nil%22+language%3A%22Emacs+Lisp%22&type=Code ) shows that (org-set-tags nil t) is pretty viral in one org-settings.el out there. > > instances in the Org source itself. I though just created a wrapper in my > > personal config to do ALIGN-ONLY-CURRENT when prefix is C-u C-u. > > I don't think an user needs to distinguish between aligning all and > aligning only current. I think this is just confusing. > That's alright. I can see that it might not be that useful as org-set-tags anyways aligns the tags. (I am just used to abusing the free C-u C-u in my config :)) > > PS: Also, in addition, was thinking of calling JUST-ALIGN ALIGN-ALL > > instead. > > Sounds good. > Thanks. > > With: > > > > (defun org-set-tags (&optional ALIGN-ALL ALIGN-ONLY-CURRENT) .. > > > > it will be more apparent that they are mutually exclusive args. > > It still bugs me because (org-set-tags t t) doesn't make any sense. > Same sentiments here (I even fixed one case of (org-set-tags t t) in that patch). > WDYT? > The only concern is the one I presented above; doing this will break many personal configs. -- Kaushal Modi
