Hello, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Daniel Clemente <n142...@gmail.com> writes: >> El Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:10:32 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou va escriure: >>> >>> You are free to make any distinction you want. Unfortunately, Org does >>> a different one. In particular, as you noticed, there are some areas >>> where things are not as clear. For example, Org cannot be sure that >>> a given drawer wasn't inserted manually, so altering its indentation may >>> or may not be a good choice.
Regarding CLOCK lines, I guess we all agree it's not user-input, but data managed by Org, right? >>> So, what's wrong with `org-adapt-indentation' set to nil? >> >> This. By default (tested on emacs -Q), when you have this tree: >> >> **** Some text >> Hi >> >> ...and you clock in, you get: >> >> **** Some text >> CLOCK: [2014-12-14 Sun 18:55]--[2014-12-14 Sun 18:57] => 0:02 >> Hi >> >> Same with properties: >> **** eeeee >> :PROPERTIES: >> :ou: 22 >> :END: >> Text >> >> That is 1) uglier than the default. > > This is subjective. I agree this is probably suggestive, but *I* also find it clearer to have the indentation different for: - user-inputted text - Org-managed stuff (such as clock line, timestamps or property drawers) Note that I wrote timestamps instead of planning info because I also would find it clearer to get: >> **** Some text >> [2014-12-14 Sun 18:55] than >> **** Some text >> [2014-12-14 Sun 18:55] (when one wants to insert the timestamp in a captured note or task) > Again, I suggest to sync indentation of planning info and all adjacent > drawers. Nothing smarter. Including the LOGBOOK, then? That would already fulfill several above cases IIUC -- not the timestamp one, though. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
