Re: [Orgmode] Poll: Who is using these commands

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 9, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Scott Randby wrote:


On 05/08/2010 04:22 PM, Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs wrote:

Hi!
Carsten Dominik schrieb:

I am wondering:

How many of your are using these keys

C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p


Never. I always use the speed commands since they became available.


The problem I have with speed commands is that, according to the  
manual, they only work "when the cursor is at the beginning of a  
headline." I need commands that work when the cursor is anywhere on  
the headline.


Hi Scott,

what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative  
bindings?
These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here have  
pointed out,
they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down, press the  
character.)


- Carsten



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Poll: Who is using these commands

[Ecce Berlin]

 How many of your are using these keys

 C-c C-f
 C-c C-b
 C-c C-n
 C-c C-p


I use them 1000 times a day, but I like the idea of changing them to C-M-[fbnp].

But I would also add C-c C-u (then C-M-u) to the list.


Ecce


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Poll: Who is using these commands

[Sebastian Rose]

Bernt Hansen  writes:
> I currently use all of the four navigation keys above.  C-c C-n and C-c
> C-p are the two I use the most.  If there was some other key binding
> that would do the same thing from inside the body of a task that would
> be fine with me.

Carsten Dominik  writes:
> what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative bindings?
> These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here have pointed out,
> they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down, press the character.)


  C-M e- end-of-defun
  C-M a- beginning-of-defun

have no useful binding in Org-mode, too.


What about re-using beginning-of-defun  `C-M a'  to jump to the start of
the current sections headline (or the beginning of the headline, if
point is on a headline) to speed up the speed keys?

`C-M e' could jump the beginnig of the next headline (or the end of the
current section, if no headline follows).



  Sebastian


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Leo]

On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
> bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
> have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
> press the character.)

It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.

However, it makes sense to bind C-M-a and C-M-e to move the the
beginning/end of a subtree.

I don't use these org movement bindings much because isearch does the
job perfectly and it can be used everywhere.

Leo

-- 
CCL-USER> _



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Stephan Schmitt]

On 05/09/2010 04:26 PM, Also sprach Leo:

On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:

what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
press the character.)


It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.


On the other hand, I often press the C-M-[fbnp] combinations in org
mode with the expectation to navigate through the logical structure
like I'm used from lisp mode.  Then I'm surprised to find the point
somewhere in a hidden subtree with the cursor at the ellipsis which
represent it.

In other words, in a more abstract view as structure navigating keys
the proposed binding is more intuive then the parenthesis oriented
motion.  But perhaps this holds only for lisp hackers...

Greetings,
Stephan




However, it makes sense to bind C-M-a and C-M-e to move the the
beginning/end of a subtree.

I don't use these org movement bindings much because isearch does the
job perfectly and it can be used everywhere.

Leo




___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Wow -- adding images to an org file

[Daniel Martins]

In short

What I have to do (minimal code in .emacs and .org) to display an image?


This image will be maintained when I export the file?

iimage could be included in org distribution?



Daniel


2010/5/8 Carsten Dominik 

>
> On May 7, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Dan Davison wrote:
>
>  Carsten Dominik  writes:
>>
>>  On May 7, 2010, at 4:16 AM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>  Nathan Neff  gmail.com> writes:


> I just saw Andreas's screenshot here:
>
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-screenshots.php
>
> If you zoom in to his screenshot,
> http://orgmode.org/img/screenshots/org_andreas.jpg
>
> You can see how he adds images to his org files.
> All that I had to do was put this into my emacs init file:
>
> (defun org-dblock-write:image (params)
> (let ((file (plist-get params :file)))
>   (clear-image-cache file)
>   (insert-image (create-image file) )))
>
> Then, put this in an org-file:
>
> #+BEGIN: image :file "~/Documents/personal/foo.png"
> #+END
>
> And run C-c C-c (or is it C-c C-x C-u)?
>
> Anyway, Cool stuff!
>
> --Nate
>
>

 Another way to have images in org-mode documents is to use the
 "iimage"
 minor mode, which handles  inline images:
 http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~kose/Emacs/iimage.html

 For additional documentation:
 http://orgmode.org/worg/org-configs/org-config-examples.php#sec-2_2

>>>
>>> At that place, I find this code:
>>> (add-to-list 'iimage-mode-image-regex-alist (cons (concat
>>> "\\[\\[file:\
>>> \(~?" iimage-mode-image-filename-regex "\\)\\]") 1))
>>> (defun org-toggle-iimage-in-org () "display images in your org file"
>>> (interactive) (if (face-underline-p 'org-link) (set-face-
>>> underline-p 'org-link nil) (set-face-underline-p 'org-link t))
>>> (iimage-
>>> mode))
>>> I guess I could actually add the above code to org.el, so that the
>>> only thing to do for a user would be to turn on iimage-mode.
>>> What is the purpose of toggling the underline property of the link face?
>>>
>>
>> It puts a horizontal line through the middle of the displayed image
>> (haven't checked if that's fixed in latest emacs).
>>
>
> I see.
>
> We have now native inline image display in Org-mode, you can toggle it with
>
> C-c C-x C-v
>
> This implementation uses overlays instead of text properties and therefore
> does not interfere with font-lock.
>
>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
> ___
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 9, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Leo wrote:


On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:

what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
press the character.)


It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.


Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these?  The outline  
structure is a hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a  
similar way as the parenthesis structure in Lisp code  Emacs major  
mode conventions allow overwriting general commands when this makes  
sense for the mode and executed similiar functionality.


I am no exper here, so please tell me if this would be a reasonable  
interpretation or not.


- Carsten



However, it makes sense to bind C-M-a and C-M-e to move the the
beginning/end of a subtree.

I don't use these org movement bindings much because isearch does the
job perfectly and it can be used everywhere.

Leo

--
CCL-USER> _



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


- Carsten





___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Nick Dokos]

Leo  wrote:

> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
> > press the character.)
> 
> It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
> They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
> also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
> from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.
> 

I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately.

I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
structure in org-mode as well.

My 2 cents,
Nick



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Bug: [PATCH] org-store-link not working for Gnus articles on gmane.emacs.orgmode [6.36trans (release_6.36.3.gd087.dirty)]

[Gregory J. Grubbs]

Remember to cover the basics, that is, what you expected to happen and
what in fact did happen.  You don't know how to make a good report?  See

 http://orgmode.org/manual/Feedback.html#Feedback

Your bug report will be posted to the Org-mode mailing list.



org-store-link is not working for Gnus articles, due to the 'To' field
being set to nil in org-gnus-store-link (actually, the relevant field
comes back as nil from gnus-summary-article-header).  M-x org-store-link
calls the debugger with the following backtrace:

--8<---cut here---start->8---
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument stringp nil)
  string-match("%-?[0-9.]*c" nil)
  (if (string-match re (cdr e)) (progn (let ... ... ...)))
  (when (string-match re (cdr e)) (let (... ...) (add-text-properties 0 3 ... 
safe) (setcdr e ...)))
  (while (setq e (pop tbl)) (setq re (concat "%-?[0-9.]*" ...)) (when 
(string-match re ...) (let ... ... ...)) (while (string-match re string) (setq 
rpl ...) (setq string ...)))
  (let ((tbl ...) (case-fold-search nil) (pchg 0) e re rpl) (while (setq e ...) 
(setq re ...) (when ... ...) (while ... ... ...)) (while (setq pchg ...) (let 
... ...)) string)
  org-replace-escapes("Email from %f: %.30s" (("%c") ("%F" . "\"Sven Bretfeld\" 
") ("%f" . "Sven Bretfeld") ("%T") ("%t" . "?") ("%s" . 
"Re: suggestions of Android smartphones") ("%m" . "87k4s1rzuc@gmx.ch")))
  org-email-link-description()
  (setq desc (org-email-link-description) link (org-gnus-article-link group 
newsgroups message-id x-no-archive))
  (let* ((group gnus-newsgroup-name) (header ...) (from ...) (message-id ...) 
(date ...) (subject ...) (to ...) newsgroups x-no-archive desc link) (when 
(org-xor current-prefix-arg org-gnus-prefer-web-links) (save-window-excursion 
...) (setq to ... newsgroups ... x-no-archive ...)) (org-store-link-props :type 
"gnus" :from from :subject subject :message-id message-id :group group :to to) 
(setq desc (org-email-link-description) link (org-gnus-article-link group 
newsgroups message-id x-no-archive)) (org-add-link-props :link link 
:description desc) link)
  (cond ((eq major-mode ...) (let* ... ...)) ((memq major-mode ...) (let* ... 
... ... ... ... link)))
  org-gnus-store-link()
  run-hook-with-args-until-success(org-gnus-store-link)
  org-store-link(nil)
  call-interactively(org-store-link t nil)
  execute-extended-command(nil)
  call-interactively(execute-extended-command nil nil)

--8<---cut here---end--->8---


The error is occuring when the cdr is taken of '("%T")  -- a patch
follows ... it seems correct to me that the code be made robust in the
presence of a non-cons cell.

I have tested the links generated; they work for the article links I
have tested.

--8<---cut here---start->8---
diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index 8f9e16c..85c79ee
--- a/lisp/org.el
+++ b/lisp/org.el
@@ -17700,7 +17700,7 @@ so values can contain further %-escapes if they are 
define later in TABLE."
 e re rpl)
 (while (setq e (pop tbl))
   (setq re (concat "%-?[0-9.]*" (substring (car e) 1)))
-  (when (string-match re (cdr e))
+  (when (and (cdr e) (string-match re (cdr e)))
 (let ((sref (substring (cdr e) (match-beginning 0) (match-end 0)))
   (safe "SREF"))
   (add-text-properties 0 3 (list 'sref sref) safe)
--8<---cut here---end--->8---





Emacs  : GNU Emacs 23.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2010-05-08 on G41R2F1
Package: Org-mode version 6.36trans (release_6.36.3.gd087.dirty)

current state:
==
(setq
 org-clock-in-switch-to-state "STARTED"
 org-export-latex-after-initial-vars-hook '(org-beamer-after-initial-vars)
 org-special-ctrl-a/e t
 org-agenda-clockreport-parameter-plist '(:link t :maxlevel 99)
 org-agenda-custom-commands '(("P" "Projects" tags "Project|project|PROJECT" 
((org-use-tag-inheritance nil)))
  ("o" "Open Scan" agenda ""
   ((org-agenda-ndays 1) (org-clock-modeline-total 
(quote today)) (tags "-noagenda") (org-agenda-dim-blocked-tasks nil)
(org-agenda-overriding-columns-format 
"%CATEGORY %ALLTAGS %30ITEM %CLOCKSUM") (org-agenda-start-with-clockreport-mode 
t)
(org-agenda-files (quote 
("~/work/openscan/openscan.org" "~/projects/misc.org" 
"~/projects/habits.org"))) (org-refile-targets (quote ((nil :maxlevel . 3
(org-clock-clocktable-default-properties (quote 
(:maxlevel 1 :step day
   )
  ("S" "Started Tasks" todo "STARTED" 
((org-agenda-todo-ignore-with-date nil))) ("w" "Tasks waiting on something" 
tags "WAITING" ((org-use-tag-inheritance nil)))
  

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Leo]

On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
> incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
> sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately.

Perhaps you haven't noticed. SEXP is a useful abstract. For example, it
allows you to move across some_long_function_name in C and even in the
message-mode I'm currently using, not just parenthesis. Situation like
this will arise when editing org files too. It is a key binding that you
can rely on in various modes and they happen to do the right thing.

They are not re-defined, in most modes once you have a proper syntax
table, they just work. On the other hand, the defun abstraction is not
as universal as sexp so redefine them is fine.

C-M-f and C-M-b are keys that I use extensively.

I haven't used C-M-n and C-M-p much.

> I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
> structure in org-mode as well.

I am not against binding suitable keys to structure movement.

Leo


-- 
CCL-USER> _



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Wow -- adding images to an org file

[Sebastian Rose]

Daniel Martins  writes:
> In short
>
> What I have to do (minimal code in .emacs and .org) to display an image?


Update to current Org-Mode and from the on press


C-c C-x C-v

> This image will be maintained when I export the file?

Yes.

> iimage could be included in org distribution?

Not neccessary anymore.




> 2010/5/8 Carsten Dominik 
>>  

>> We have now native inline image display in Org-mode, you can toggle it with
>>
>> C-c C-x C-v
>>
>> This implementation uses overlays instead of text properties and therefore
>> does not interfere with font-lock.
>>
>>
>> - Carsten



  Sebastian


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Sebastian Rose]

Carsten Dominik  writes:
> Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these?  The outline structure is 
> a
> hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a  similar way as the
> parenthesis structure in Lisp code  Emacs major  mode conventions allow
> overwriting general commands when this makes  sense for the mode and executed
> similiar functionality.


I guess it is the usual practice - and it definitively makes sense.

Now C-M-e jumps to the end of the buffer. I.e. it's good for nothing and
does _not_ what I would expect it to do:  navigate to the end of the
current syntactical structure element.


  Sebastian


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Sebastian Rose]

Leo  writes:
> Perhaps you haven't noticed. SEXP is a useful abstract. For example, it
> allows you to move across some_long_function_name in C and even in the
> message-mode I'm currently using, not just parenthesis. Situation like
> this will arise when editing org files too. It is a key binding that you
> can rely on in various modes and they happen to do the right thing.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, that C-M-a  and  C-M-e  do not anything
usefull or similar to what you describe  in Org-mode buffers.

Navigating sections would be something similar and useful. Wouldn't it?


  Sebastian


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Leo]

On 2010-05-09 16:24 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these? The outline
> structure is a hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a
> similar way as the parenthesis structure in Lisp code Emacs major
> mode conventions allow overwriting general commands when this makes
> sense for the mode and executed similiar functionality.

Probably not C-M-f and C-M-b. I haven't seen any mode in which these
keys are bound to something significantly different.

If org mode decide to be more structure oriented, maybe something can be
learnt from nxml-mode. I have heard good things about it though I
haven't used it myself.

Leo



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Leo]

On 2010-05-09 18:33 +0100, Sebastian Rose wrote:
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, that C-M-a  and  C-M-e  do not anything
> usefull or similar to what you describe  in Org-mode buffers.
>
> Navigating sections would be something similar and useful. Wouldn't it?

I already stated it makes sense to re-bind C-M-a and C-M-e. 'defun'
usually also means top-level that suits well with the structure in org
mode.

Leo



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Dan Davison]

Leo  writes:

> On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
>> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
>> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
>> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
>> incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
>> sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately.
>
> Perhaps you haven't noticed. SEXP is a useful abstract. For example,
> it allows you to move across some_long_function_name in C and even in
> the message-mode I'm currently using, not just parenthesis. Situation
> like this will arise when editing org files too.

Yes, so in other words C-M-f can be used to jump over atoms, and in many
modes that has the useful effect of jumping over words containing '_'
'-' etc. I haven't seen any disagreement yet over the general principle
of treating headings as SEXPs, so I think the issue here is: is Org
happy to declare that a childless heading is atomic? And if we are happy
with that, are we left with a convenient way to skip over
something-like-this or something_like_this when they occur in Org-mode?

An alternative view would be that when point is at the beginning of a
heading C-M-f skips over the subtree, and otherwise C-M-f skips over one
"Org atom", however defined.

Dan



> It is a key binding that you
> can rely on in various modes and they happen to do the right thing.
>
> They are not re-defined, in most modes once you have a proper syntax
> table, they just work. On the other hand, the defun abstraction is not
> as universal as sexp so redefine them is fine.
>
> C-M-f and C-M-b are keys that I use extensively.
>
> I haven't used C-M-n and C-M-p much.
>
>> I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
>> structure in org-mode as well.
>
> I am not against binding suitable keys to structure movement.
>
> Leo


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Dan Davison]

Nick Dokos  writes:

> Leo  wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
>> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
>> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
>> > press the character.)
>> 
>> It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
>> They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
>> also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
>> from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.
>> 
>
> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
> incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
> sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately.
>
> I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
> structure in org-mode as well.

I basically agree. However, the proposed mapping between SEXP movement
commands in programming modes and in org-mode seems rather loose:

Presumably the intended mapping is

C-c C-n <--> C-M-n   "n command"
C-c C-f <--> C-M-f   "f command"

That suggests that the n command in Org-mode should skip over the next
subtree, like forward-list; however, it advances over a body to the
start of the next subtree.

In fact, isn't there an argument that the Org bindings are the wrong way
round?  If we define in Org-mode:

- atom :: the body of a heading
- SEXP :: an atom, or a subtree

then the n command in Org-mode currently behaves a bit like forward-sexp
(C-M-f) , whereas the f command in Org-mode behaves a bit like
forward-list (C-M-n).

Dan




>
> My 2 cents,
> Nick
>
>
>
> ___
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Dan Davison]

Nick Dokos  writes:

> Leo  wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
>> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
>> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
>> > press the character.)
>> 
>> It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
>> They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who
>> also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
>> from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.
>> 
>
> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
> incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
> sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately.
>
> I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
> structure in org-mode as well.

I basically agree. However, the proposed mapping between SEXP movement
commands in programming modes and in org-mode seems rather loose:

Presumably the intended mapping is

C-c C-n <--> C-M-n   "n command"
C-c C-f <--> C-M-f   "f command"

That suggests that the n command in Org-mode should skip over the next
subtree, like forward-list; however, it advances over a body to the
start of the next subtree.

In fact, isn't there an argument that the Org bindings are the wrong way
round?  If we define in Org-mode:

- atom :: the body of a heading
- SEXP :: an atom, or a subtree

then the n command in Org-mode currently behaves a bit like forward-sexp
(C-M-f) , whereas the f command in Org-mode behaves a bit like
forward-list (C-M-n).

Dan




>
> My 2 cents,
> Nick
>
>
>
> ___
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Poll: Who is using these commands

[Scott Randby]

On 05/09/2010 07:43 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:


On May 9, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Scott Randby wrote:


On 05/08/2010 04:22 PM, Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs wrote:

Hi!
Carsten Dominik schrieb:

I am wondering:

How many of your are using these keys

C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p


Never. I always use the speed commands since they became available.


The problem I have with speed commands is that, according to the
manual, they only work "when the cursor is at the beginning of a
headline." I need commands that work when the cursor is anywhere on
the headline.


Hi Scott,

what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative bindings?
These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here have pointed
out,
they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down, press the character.)

- Carsten


If you want to go with these, then C-c C-u and C-c C-j should also be changed. 
However, I am concerned that C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p, C-M-u, and C-M-j are 
already bound to other useful functions. I don't use these functions myself, 
but after looking over what they do, I can see that changing these bindings 
might interfere with the work of some.

Scott


___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

[Orgmode] Bug: Docstring of org-export-as-latex [6.35i]

[Jan Moringen]

Hi,

the docstring of org-export-as-latex contains incorrectly escaped \
characters resulting in two passages being rendered like
^Hegin{document}...^Hnd{document}.

The attached patch should fix the problem (The patch is against the
org-mode version included in GNU Emacs).

Emacs  : GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.9) of
2010-05-07 on azurit
Package: Org-mode version 6.35i
--- org-latex.el	2010-05-09 14:06:43.0 +0200
+++ org-latex.el	2010-05-07 16:41:05.0 +0200
@@ -580,8 +580,8 @@
 buffer.  If TO-BUFFER is the symbol `string', don't leave any
 buffer behind but just return the resulting LaTeX as a string.
 When BODY-ONLY is set, don't produce the file header and footer,
-simply return the content of \\begin{document}...\\end{document},
-without even the \\begin{document} and \\end{document} commands.
+simply return the content of \begin{document}...\end{document},
+without even the \begin{document} and \end{document} commands.
 when PUB-DIR is set, use this as the publishing directory."
   (interactive "P")
   (run-hooks 'org-export-first-hook)
___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 9, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Dan Davison wrote:


Nick Dokos  writes:


Leo  wrote:


On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:

what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many  
here
have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M-  
down,

press the character.)


It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings.
They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people  
who

also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move
from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis.



I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes
sense in that language and these commands are redefined  
appropriately.


I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate
structure in org-mode as well.


I basically agree. However, the proposed mapping between SEXP movement
commands in programming modes and in org-mode seems rather loose:

Presumably the intended mapping is

C-c C-n <--> C-M-n   "n command"
C-c C-f <--> C-M-f   "f command"

That suggests that the n command in Org-mode should skip over the next
subtree, like forward-list; however, it advances over a body to the
start of the next subtree.

In fact, isn't there an argument that the Org bindings are the wrong  
way

round?  If we define in Org-mode:

- atom :: the body of a heading
- SEXP :: an atom, or a subtree

then the n command in Org-mode currently behaves a bit like forward- 
sexp

(C-M-f) , whereas the f command in Org-mode behaves a bit like
forward-list (C-M-n).


Hi Dan,

good observation, I had not realized this.

Hmm.  We are not there yet.

- Carsten



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode