Slawomir Grochowski <[email protected]> writes: > I am looking at `org-columns--compute-spec' in `org-colview.el' and > noticed this code: > > (if (bound-and-true-p org-inlinetask-max-level) > org-inlinetask-max-level > 29) > > However, I cannot find any definition of `org-inlinetask-max-level' in > Org. In particular, `org-inlinetask.el' defines > `org-inlinetask-min-level', but does not mention > `org-inlinetask-max-level'.
You are right. > Looking at history, `f4f0fc8bd' changed `org-inlinetask-min-level' to > `org-inlinetask-max-level', with the note that column summaries should > use the maximum, not minimum, possible inlinetask depth. > > What makes the current state unclear to me is that `org-colview.el' > still declares: > > (defvar org-inlinetask-min-level) > > but after `f4f0fc8bd' the file no longer uses that variable and instead > references the undeclared `org-inlinetask-max-level'. > > Was `org-inlinetask-max-level' intended as an external/user-settable > escape hatch, or is this a stale reference to a variable that was never > added? I am asking because I am refactoring this area and want to avoid > preserving misleading names or removing intentional behavior. No, pilot error. The bug I was fixing was most likely because I wanted to include inlinetasks into summaries, and I mechanically replaced the value for "lmax" to "max" level. You may need to look into the original change from 62ec8c0a48fb8eac664ef24c95538544afc13e0d to understand what the code is supposed to do there. > Would it make sense to keep the current `bound-and-true-p' fallback, or > should the code just use the hard-coded deepest level directly? I am not sure if we really need hard-coded deepest level. But may need to study the archives. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, 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>
