Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Rick Moynihan
Eddward DeVilla wrote: ... Now first off, I know I could get most of what I want if I were to switch to use outline entries instead of a plain list. Heading don't wrap. That just seems wrong though. It's a list. I'd have to replace the simple checkboxes with TODO keyword (which isn't so unrea

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Carsten Dominik
On Jul 6, 2007, at 0:01, Eddward DeVilla wrote: What I'm after here is a short statement of the question, possibly a short statement of the answer, and the details under it so I can hide the detail with visibility cycling on plain lists. I already kind of do this, but it goes horribly wrong wh

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Rick Moynihan
Carsten Dominik wrote: Well, a two-state todo setup really *is* a checkbox, even if it does not look like one. About the only difference is the command you use to toggle the state. I agree that they have the same number of states, but I think the differences between them are far greater than

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Carsten Dominik
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:56, Rick Moynihan wrote: Eddward DeVilla wrote: ... Now first off, I know I could get most of what I want if I were to switch to use outline entries instead of a plain list. Heading don't wrap. That just seems wrong though. It's a list. I'd have to replace the simple

Re: [Orgmode] OT: remember'ing from other programs with stumpwm

2007-07-06 Thread Jason F. McBrayer
"Dmitri Minaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, something like this. Unfortunately, C-c copies the text into the > clipboard, and Emacs pastes the content of the primary selection. And > I'm afraid that Conkeror also uses the clipboard selection. I want to > try and play with xclipboard or xsel

Re: [Orgmode] OT: remember'ing from other programs with stumpwm

2007-07-06 Thread Dmitri Minaev
On 7/6/07, Jason F. McBrayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about x-clipboard-yank? Also, if x-select-enable-clipboard is non-nil, shouldn't emacs paste the clipboard when available? If I knew these words before, I would've used them :). Well, there are more things in heaven and earth... --

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Carsten Dominik
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:45, Rick Moynihan wrote: Carsten Dominik wrote: Well, a two-state todo setup really *is* a checkbox, even if it does not look like one. About the only difference is the command you use to toggle the state. I agree that they have the same number of states, but I think t

Re: [Orgmode] OT: remember'ing from other programs with stumpwm

2007-07-06 Thread Jason F. McBrayer
"Dmitri Minaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 7/6/07, Jason F. McBrayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What about x-clipboard-yank? Also, if x-select-enable-clipboard is >> non-nil, shouldn't emacs paste the clipboard when available? > > If I knew these words before, I would've used them :). We

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Eddward DeVilla
On 7/6/07, Rick Moynihan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Out of curiousity this led me to try doing something like this: (setq org-todo-keywords '((sequence "TODO" "|" "DONE") (type "[ ]" "|" "[X]") )) i.e. Hack an implementation of checkboxes onto the todo-keywords feature.

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Eddward DeVilla
On 7/6/07, Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Todo keywords need to be words currently, so you could do something like (setq org-todo-keywords '((sequence "TODO" "|" "DONE") (type "I_I" "|" "IXI") )) Cool. I'll have to remember that. I can get back my old sta

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Eddward DeVilla
On 7/6/07, Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It it is only the wrapping, you could simply hack org-fill-paragraph, for example like this: Thanks. I'll have to play with it. But I guess you are really after definition lists. I actually like definition lists, but sadly the real nit

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Eddward DeVilla
On 7/6/07, Rick Moynihan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After thinking about it; I have on occasion wanted to schedule a checkboxed item into the agenda. This said I'm not convinced supporting this is a good idea. Does anyone else have any views? I'm usually for collapsing similar things in to on

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Rick Moynihan
Eddward DeVilla wrote: On 7/6/07, Rick Moynihan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After thinking about it; I have on occasion wanted to schedule a checkboxed item into the agenda. This said I'm not convinced supporting this is a good idea. Does anyone else have any views? I'm usually for collapsing

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Carsten Dominik
On Jul 6, 2007, at 18:28, Rick Moynihan wrote: Agreed. My gut feeling is that they fulfill largely different purposes. The problem is that I tend to make a decision to structure something with lists & checkboxes, and later on discover I want an item in the list to appear inside the agenda.

Re: [Orgmode] definition lists in org-mode

2007-07-06 Thread Carsten Dominik
On Jul 6, 2007, at 17:43, Eddward DeVilla wrote: But I guess you are really after definition lists. I actually like definition lists, but sadly the real nit I'm try to address is the wrapping. Maybe I have hack something where a ':' (or some such) at the end of the first line of a list ent