Michael Dauer <mick.da...@gmail.com> writes: > I understand your view. From the user perspective inline task are still > more a specialization of a task, which is a specialisation of a heading. > > Here is my implementation of how I see it that it should behave: > (defun pm-cut-special () > "Like org-cut-special but also works on inlinetask." > (interactive) > (if (not (eq 'inlinetask (save-excursion (org-back-to-heading t) > (org-element-type (org-element-context))))) > (funcall-interactively 'org-cut-special) > (org-inlinetask-goto-beginning) > (let ((begin (point))) > (org-inlinetask-goto-end) > (kill-region begin (point)) > (message "Cut: Inline Task"))))
I looked into this further, and I can see that in the earlier versions of Org org-cut-special on inlinetask killed that inlinetask, not the containing subtree: * Heading Text ****************** Inlinetask<point> ****************** END More text * Another heading C-c C-x C-w * Heading Text <point> More text * Another heading It was by accident, AFAIU. Also, when point was at END, it was buggy (only removed "END" line). So, technically, the current behaviour cutting the actual subtree (not inlinetask) can be considered a feature regression (if we call the previously existing bug a "feature"). I think that it would be slightly better to keep special behaviour for inlinetasks. But other opinions would be appreciated. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, 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>
