James Harkins writes:
> Upon further reflection, I think the best would be to bind
> org-metaup/down to the "move subtree" menu items, rather than
> org-shiftmetaup. I'm guessing that this is the more common use case
> (because moving a whole subtree doesn't destroy the structure of that
> subtre
At Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:48:56 +0100,
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> James Harkins writes:
> > BTW the name of the menu item is misleading. C-h C-k M-S-up:
> >
> > ~~
> > It is bound to , > Subtree Up>,.
>
> What improvement are you suggesting then?
Upon further reflection, I think the best woul
James Harkins writes:
> BTW the name of the menu item is misleading. C-h C-k M-S-up:
>
> ~~
> It is bound to , Subtree Up>,.
> ~~
>
> This is why I thought that M-S-up/down would work on entry + contents -- I
> looked in the Emacs menu and saw "Move Subtree Up," and I didn't think to
> ch
Nicolas Goaziou nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Both `M-S-up' and `M-S-down' work line wise and ignore any structure
> around point. OTOH, `M-up' and `M-down' should do what you want.
BTW the name of the menu item is misleading. C-h C-k M-S-up:
~~
It is bound to ,,.
~~
This is why I thoug
On November 2, 2014 4:25:53 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Actually, it isn't. This is a feature.
Both `M-S-up' and `M-S-down' work line wise and ignore any structure
around point. OTOH, `M-up' and `M-down' should do what you want.
Ah, OK... It would be a bug if there were no function to move a l
Hello,
James Harkins writes:
> In plain lists, if there is indented text underneath a list item, is
> it considered to "belong to" the list item, or is it just freestanding
> text?
The former.
> I'm asking because M-S-up/down doesn't take indented text into
> account. These commands only move
In plain lists, if there is indented text underneath a list item, is it
considered to "belong to" the list item, or is it just freestanding text?
I'm asking because M-S-up/down doesn't take indented text into account. These
commands only move the line marked with a list-item indicator ("-" etc.)
