[as an example, i should not have brought up the follow mode example at all. it seems to have only confused readers. i was trying to forestall any suggestions that follow-mode exists and can do the job that next-error can is all. it can't do the same job.]
On 12/19/21, Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/21, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> multiple agenda views is not an uncommon workflow. You may have daily > > i think this is a strong objection. multiple simultaneous agenda > views seems to sink my suggestion. > > can one have multiple simultaneous c-c / buffers? and multiple > grep/occur/compilation shell minor mode? > > or a grep buffer and an occur buffer and a compilation shell minor > mode buffer simultaneously? what disambiguates those? > > idk what is done in such cases. perhaps there is an assumption of a > single set of errors at a time, or some buffer local thing. > >> etc. It would be unclear which agenda view to use when you call >> next-error. Last generated? Last visited? What about agenda filters? >> Dimmed tasks? > > yes, good points, if you mean separate agendas. [else filters > honored; dimmed presumably not skipped by default.] > >> >>> furthermore, the next-closest thing, follow mode, puts point in wrong >>> window. also, 'canonical visibility is not present so i cannot see >>> everything [this might or might not be fixable by user]. >> >> Can you elaborate? > > well it is moot because of the accessibility issue, but it is > unsuitable for the next-error task. point in wrong window so you have > to switch. some things hidden so you have to make visible is all i > meant. again, moot so no suggestions needed here. > >>> also there is an accessibility issue with it. i use large fonts so 2 >>> windows do not show much. i use 2 windows only for very rare >>> completion or selecting purposes. not usable here. >> >> I also use relatively large fonts, though I do have space for two >> windows (but not more). Note that there is org-agenda-entry-text-mode. > > indeed that shows text. not editable directly in the real buffer, so > not like next-error. not useful for me in practice but nice. > > the next-error idea is for consistency with other parts of emacs. > your multiple simultaneous agenda problem might nix it, dunno. > >> Might be useful. Also, I personally prefer org-quickpeek in agenda. > > can't seem to find that package but next-error allows editing not just > peeking. > >> This sounds like you could use more tight search criteria or custom >> agenda searches. An example of irrelevant vs. relevant information could >> help us to suggest something for you. > > appreciate the offfer but pretty ure nobody can help here. i am also > limited in computer use and the back and forth is an issue. i would > not be able to describe the poroblems in sufficient detail, there > would be further questions, i'd have to respond, etc. > > but basically i have had org for a long time and i am not able to > maintain my forest as well as i need to. > > but it was just one point of many. help here would in most cases > likely be smething i have already thought of. appreciates the offer. > > next-error is a sort of general tool. it is not just for this purpose > and compilation errors. imo at least. that is why c-c / uses it. > >> >>> next-error would help me traverse and trim it rapidly. i could >>> perhaps create a kb macro to emulate it, but i haven't tried yet. >>> then again, one could do so for grep mode etc. also. :] >> >> If you decide to go with macro, it should not be too hard. Just <RET> on >> agenda item, do your edits, macro-beg, switch to agenda buffer, >> next-line, <RET>, macro-end > > yes :) [and doing soething to create canonical visibility at point so > that everything relevant is visible, and setting line in window]. > > [and finding that kb macro to lisp package and binding the command and > possibly overloading the next-error bindings.] > >> >> Best, >> Ihor >> >> > > my suggestion was for org's sake and i didn't think this much detail > would be needed at the time. i used my computer use time to do the > best i could, but it seems that more detail was needed, and that > detail needed discussion. my bad. > > n.b. i've been on the list for years, and many core features of org, > and parts thereof, were actually... my suggestions :). > > but sometimes i miss the mark apparently, especially lately. as in this > case. > > still, not sure why multiple grep buffers or grep with occur or c-c /, > etc. are compatible but multiple simultaneous agenda not so. > > -- > The Kafka Pandemic > > A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy: > https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com > -- The Kafka Pandemic A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy: https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
