Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: >>> The above statement is a hint that patches are welcome :) >> >> As said, I am not that well familiar with org in-depth, and with other places >> that might need to be factored out, so I don't promise anything. Initially I >> just got a quick idea while working on a project of mine with org-capture, >> and >> hacked the 'org-capture' function to implement my idea :). > > Feel free at ask anything if you encounter difficulties. It is not > always trivial to convert something that works for you personally into > something suitable for all the people using Org.
Hello again; I have been playing with this, and so far the biggest problem is that I get too many ideas as longer I refactor the existing code :). However, I have a question: would it be acceptable for org-capture to change the input model? I have implemented more flexible replacement for org-mks, and refactored it out of org-mode under new nick 'quick-menu' to indicate that it does not pull any of org mode with it. I have one implementation based on "read-key" function from org-macs and used in original org-mks. A proptotype works, but I am not done completely. However before I continue, I am thinking of ditching the 'read-key' completely and switching to "standard" Emacs way of implementing interactivity via mode and mode-map. I am currently playing with such implementation, which to me appears both simpler (code reduction) and more flexible, but it does change the mental model of how clients of org-mks are used, for example org-capture. I don't think it should be a deal-breaker, but that is my personal opinion, so I would like to hear if that change would be acceptable or not?
