On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:10 AM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
>
> The problem is that your initial suggestion make it impossible, common
> or not.
>
I agree. That was a mistake. I overlooked the case where one would want to
have mix of checkbox and unordered items.
> As it is, it is symmetric with
Hello,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> Is it that common to have mix of checkboxes and unordered lists items?
The problem is that your initial suggestion make it impossible, common
or not.
> I would think that this behavior of org-meta-return is more consistent:
>
> - If you are on a "* foo" line,
Hello Nicolas, Brent,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:53 AM Bernt Hansen wrote:
> I agree. I use lists with mixed checkboxes and no checkboxes and do not
> want to enforce checkboxes on every list item.
>
OK, I can understand if the behavior is kept as it is.
Is it that common to have mix of
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Kaushal Modi writes:
>
>> Currently if you do M-RET in a checkbox list item, the next item does not
>> become a checkbox automatically. This patch fixes that.
>>
>> I have been using this fix locally for few months. But never got to
>> submitting it as I need to yet
Hello,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> Currently if you do M-RET in a checkbox list item, the next item does not
> become a checkbox automatically. This patch fixes that.
>
> I have been using this fix locally for few months. But never got to
> submitting it as I need to yet write a test for it.
>
>
Hello,
Currently if you do M-RET in a checkbox list item, the next item does not
become a checkbox automatically. This patch fixes that.
I have been using this fix locally for few months. But never got to
submitting it as I need to yet write a test for it.
Does that patch look good (apart from
