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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone has a good way to embed definition list
into a plain list? I think they'd be nifty. OK, to be honest, I'm
trying to solve a problem specific to the way I do things and try to
make the solution seem more general. Specifically, I'm using a
checkbox list to re
13 matches
Mail list logo