Re: [O] org-metaup / org-metadown nerfed in 7.9.1

2012-09-26 Thread Trevor Vartanoff

Jonathan,

I should have been more clear on what I meant by "basic", quite idiotic 
of me and sorry for the confusion.


If you write ten words on ten lines, you can't shift things around 
anymore until you've put everything into an Official Orgmode Endorsed 
Structure of some kind. Sometimes I don't need to bother. Sometimes 
while I'm creating the list, I don't decide until later whether to make 
it headings or list, and I need to be able to shift its items around first.


Org-mode successfully taught me that I can move _everything_ around. 
I've happily adapted to this freedom, and now it wants to take it away. 
So, I apologize for my whining, but to me it it is as unexpected as if I 
updated Emacs and the macros stopped working.





Re: [O] org-metaup / org-metadown nerfed in 7.9.1

2012-09-26 Thread Trevor Vartanoff

Nicolas,

"Org has its own definition for a paragraph, which, apparently, doesn't 
match yours.


A paragraph ends either at a blank line, at the end of the buffer, or at 
the start of another non-paragraph element. In particular, indentation 
is unrelated to paragraph boundaries."


If your definition of a paragraph excludes every single publication of 
fiction and nonfiction in the history of written language, you may want 
to rethink your definition. I think Charles Dickens knew what a 
paragraph boundary was.


Actually, it's worse than that: even if you agree that everyone using a 
computer should now separate all paragraphs with a blank line, it still 
means that for any form of writing with closely packed separate lines, 
such as song lyrics, poetry, Shakespeare plays, or even basic lists of 
todo items, org-mode no longer lets you shift the lines around.


I propose we implement an org-property value to decide which definition 
of "element" org-metaup should use. I'm glad to see an exception was 
made for node property, but that's only one of many, many problem cases.


Regards,
Trevor Vartanoff



Re: [O] org-metaup / org-metadown nerfed in 7.9.1

2012-09-20 Thread Trevor Vartanoff

Thanks Anthony. Looks like that will be helpful if I ever update.



Re: [O] org-metaup / org-metadown nerfed in 7.9.1

2012-09-19 Thread Trevor Vartanoff
Your explanation is useful. After some more experimenting, it looks like 
7.8.11 accepts a return as the dividing line between "elements", but 
7.9.1 only recognizes them as separate if there's an empty line between 
them.


Example: if I copy the first two lines of your email, I can shift "It is 
hard to understand..." to be after "When did you get the message...", 
but not if I delete the empty line between them.


And so, example 2, I was receiving "cannot drag element 
forward/backward" when I was in a heading with no line breaks. That is, 
a heading where paragraphs are separated with return + indent rather 
than a full line break of return + return.


(Behavior is identical when I start with an empty .emacs, for the record)

I suppose people who only write and handle text with Internet-style line 
breaks between paragraphs won't notice any change. Those who don't will 
either get "cannot" messages, or they will be quite surprised when org 
scans down, down, down for the next line break and ends up shifting 20 
paragraphs as one element.




[O] org-metaup / org-metadown nerfed in 7.9.1

2012-09-18 Thread Trevor Vartanoff
I updated to 7.9.1 from 7.8.11 and was quite surprised to receive nasty 
"Cannot drag element backward" messages when I tried to use org-metaup 
and org-metadown to move text around.


Why was this done? How do I get back to one stroke functionality? I'm 
afraid I'm not properly understanding the release notes or mailing list 
archives.




[O] Open Children of Children

2012-05-26 Thread Trevor Vartanoff
I've been using this macro on headings to open the subtree to the 
children of children, since org-cycle just goes "nothing -> children - 
everything":


(fset 'och ;; Open children of children
   [tab tab ?\C-n M-return ?\C-b ?* ?\C-a ?\C-p tab tab ?\C-n ?\C-k 
?\C-k ?\C-p])


Is there a more elegant solution available? If not, hopefully some of 
you find this useful as well.


Thanks