Hello, Adam Porter <a...@alphapapa.net> writes:
> I noticed that using org-metaup when a region is active seems to behave > in an unintuitive and potentially dangerous way. I would expect that it > would behave similarly to org-refile when a region is active, but it > doesn't. > > Looking at the code, I see that it does this: > > ┌──── > │ (let* ((a (min (region-beginning) (region-end))) > │ (b (1- (max (region-beginning) (region-end)))) > │ (c (save-excursion (goto-char a) > │ (move-beginning-of-line 0))) > │ (d (save-excursion (goto-char a) > │ (move-end-of-line 0) (point)))) > │ (transpose-regions a b c d) > │ (goto-char c)) > └──── > > It was difficult for me to understand what that would do, and the > docstring of transpose-regions didn't help. So I did a small > experiment, defining that code as a command and calling it in this > buffer (where the region is marked with brackets): > > ┌──── > │ abcd > │ [efgh > │ hijk] > │ lmno > └──── > > The result was this: > > ┌──── > │ efgh > │ hij > │ abcdk > │ lmno > └──── This is now fixed. Thank you. > Now for an example with Org headings, before: > > ┌──── > │ * A > │ ** A1 > │ ** A2 > │ [* B > │ ** B1 > │ ** B2] > │ * C > │ ** C1 > │ ** C2 > └──── > > After: > > ┌──── > │ * A > │ ** A1 > │ * B > │ ** B1 > │ ** B > │ ** A22 > │ * C > │ ** C1 > │ ** C2 This is partly fixed, i.e., there is no more "2" left over. > Ideally it would act on all headings in the region, but given the > complexity of doing that correctly, would it be a good first step to > simply do nothing when org-metaup is called and a region is active? It > would at least avoid corrupting data. I think that's a non-trivial > risk, because when I noticed this behavior, it was in a partially > collapsed outline, and some of the headings in the region (and their > entry content) seemed to vanish altogether; I only recovered them with > undo. I have no strong opinion on the subject. However, I agree this feature, i.e., `org-metaup' (or `org-metadown') on a region can be removed altogether, since this is but a glorified kill'n'yank process. Nevertheless, I'm Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion, as he introduced the feature in the first place. I didn't write tests for the function because its specifications are not completely defined yet. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
