Nick Dokos wrote: >Maybe - but in this particular case, you could just go to the end of the >buffer with M-> (end-of-buffer), right?
Yeah. I could just do that. (Blushing with embarrassment. :-) >And there might be a problem with your proposal: if I push a bunch of >marks during the capture, what happens after the capture is done? Are >they still on the stack? If so, should they be? I guess I was mostly thinking of capture using indirect buffers, which have their own marks and mark rings, right? Does ":unnarrowed" use the actual buffer instead of an indirect one? If so, I can see a couple options (and we've already established that there are lots of options I don't see): - If you don't like capture to set the mark, don't set it. :-) - Arrange for clean-up in the case of org-capture-kill and (maybe?) org-capture-finalize. Carsten Dominik wrote: >You could also use a prompt for the headline. Or we could allow several %? >in the buffer, with a simple key to jump to the next one and delete it..... Yeah, I could do that too. I don't know why I didn't consider that. I guess because I'm so used to the "pop-up" nature of the capture window. I'm not sure I would like/use the "multiple %?" approach. Another reason I can imagine for wanting to place the mark with capture is to define the region. (Being old, I'm somewhat ambivalent about this new-fangled "light-up" "active" region. :-) I can imagine wanting to place the mark and point (with %?), typing some stuff, and then wanting to M-w (kill-ring-save) that text. --Colin
