Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: >> S-RET already "copy down" a table cells, so I'm really suggesting a >> generalization of the current keybinding. > > This makes sense. > >> - S-RET on a list item calls `org-insert-subitem`, a new command. > > Did you mean `org-clone-item'?
Yes, sorry (`org-clone-item' is better than `org-item-copy-down', the other idea that comes naturally.) >> - C-M-RET on a heading calls `org-insert-subheading', the existing >> command. >> >> - C-M-RET on a list item calls `org-insert-subitem', a new command. >> >> I like C-M-RET better than S-RET because inserting a subheading is >> like a "subkey" or inserting a heading. > > I tried to play around a bit with various flavours of X-<RET> commands > and I am not sure if I like C-M-RET: > > 1. For org-insert-heading, we have multiple variants that allow > inserting heading at point, after current subtree, and the same > variants for TODO heading. We don't have enough key combinations left > to allow all the equivalents for subheadings. > > 2. With `org-cycle-level-after-item/entry-creation' set to t (default), > it is actually very easy to create a subheading/subitem using the > available C/M-[S]-<RET> commands. Just do M-<RET> <TAB>. And the same > will work for inserting todo headings. I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here: do you say that we don't need to find a keybinding for `org-insert-subheading/subitem' because it is already easy enough to insert a subheading/item using a certain combinaison of commands? Or do you suggest we need to find another prefix than "C-M-"? Which one? What matter the most to me here is the consistency of commands, but if the keybindings can reflect that, all the better. -- Bastien
