"Rohit Patnaik" <[email protected]> writes: > Right now, if I have the following: [...]
Rohit, thank you for describing the feature with such precision, and a clear example, leaving no space for "What do you mean?" back and forth. I wonder, why not use no check mark for optional items? - [-] Parent - [X] Child 1 - [ ] Child 2 - Child 3 Child 3 is optional and can be marked as done with C-u C-c C-x C-b C-c C-c or some shorter key binding, if desired, of course. If that is not good enough, we also have org-checkbox-statistics-hook. While we could add a new checkbox state that does not affect statistics, such as "[?]", I am not sure if such a feature would pull its weight. Rudy -- "If you're thinking without writing, you only think you're thinking." --- Leslie Lamport Rudolf Adamkovič <[email protected]> [he/him] http://adamkovic.org
