I now find some time to think about Eddward's questions and I just realized all those questions have little to do with what C-j should do.
My proposed change is in common with some other outliners such as this one: http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnioutliner/pro/ Any comments? On 2007-03-22, Eddward DeVilla said: >> I just noticed one minor issue for check boxes. As in org 4.69: >> >> - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j >> |<--- cursor moved here >> >> I think the following is more elegant: >> - [ ] Check box 1<--- C-j >> |<--- cursor moved here >> >> What do people think? > > I tend to use the top behavior, but I do kind of the look of the > second one. How would you handle subcheck boxes? > > - [ ] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 > or > > - [ ] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 This is not related to C-j, which stays in the same list entry or heading. > > Now that I think of it, this could be a little hairy for me. Right >now the behavior is > uniform. Always a 2 char indent (but I could live with a uniform 4 or 6 > char). But > sometimes I do the following > > - [/] list 1 > - [ ] list 1.1 > > The size of the [/] token can vary. I think I'd still like it to be treated > like a box > in this case. I guess I'd like it to indent the number of character as a > checkbox > line. Again, not related to what C-j does. > > Also, how would you handle numbered lists where the indent would >also change for lists > with 10 or more items. > > 1) [ ] foo1 > bar1 > 2) [ ] foo2 > bar2 > ... > 10) [ ] foo10 > bar10 Again not related. C-j is about aligning text. Best, -- Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com> (GPG Key: 9283AA3F) _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
