hi bastien,
On 4/26/18, Bastien wrote:
> yes, I read the thread. I understand your position and that of Allen,
> and there is absolutely no rush about this change.
>
> But the fact that the Global Mark Ring does not fit several uses is
> not a reason for not moving forward - I like the idea of a
Hi Samuel,
Samuel Wales writes:
> did you read the entire thread? it goes into detail that i cannot
> redo.
yes, I read the thread. I understand your position and that of Allen,
and there is absolutely no rush about this change.
But the fact that the Global Mark Ring does not fit several use
hi bastien,
did you read the entire thread? it goes into detail that i cannot redo.
if you did, do you have specific questions?
Hi Samuel,
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 4/26/18, Bastien wrote:
>> Good idea, +1 for me.
>
> i'd actually stay on an old version of org forever just to avoid the
> org mark ring being removed. when i click on a link [or similar], i
> want a single command that is guaranteed to go back to the exac
On 4/26/18, Bastien wrote:
> Good idea, +1 for me.
i'd actually stay on an old version of org forever just to avoid the
org mark ring being removed. when i click on a link [or similar], i
want a single command that is guaranteed to go back to the exact
location.
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> As the title suggests, I'm wondering if we could remove Org's own
> implementation of the mark ring
Good idea, +1 for me.
--
Bastien
oh, oops, didn't notice the replace xref bindings part. that's up to
xref users.
no objections, assuming tags users don't need those bindings?
no objections to anything allen said.
other things that can be useful in org mark ring imo are refile-goto
and going to outline from agenda.
===
off topic question:
- why are any mark rings rings? why are they not queues? do use
Hello,
Allen Li writes:
> I retract my previous stance and think that we should keep the
> org-mark-ring for now. While I do not use the org-mark-ring, I do use
> xref's marker ring, and I appreciate the value of a "link ring"
> separate from mark-ring and global-mark-ring.
[...]
> My opinion
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM Samuel Wales wrote:
> On 2/26/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> > I guess these are rhetorical questions because I answered them above.
> real questions, fyi, but never mind.
> >> if not, then i will have to use local mark
> >> ring. this means i have to think about
On 2/26/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> I guess these are rhetorical questions because I answered them above.
real questions, fyi, but never mind.
>> if not, then i will have to use local mark
>> ring. this means i have to think about whether the file i was in was
>> the same file or not.
>
> In p
Hello,
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 2/25/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> If you're still in the same document, the local mark ring moves you back
>> to the previous location. If you are not in the same document anymore,
>> the global mark ring brings you back to the previous location.
> i am at a
On 2/25/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Samuel Wales writes:
>
>> in org maint, i can click on a link and, without any cognitive
>> overhead, and with certainty, run a command to get back to the link i
>> clicked on. to me this seems like basic hypertext ability, such as
>> you might fin
Hello,
Samuel Wales writes:
> in org maint, i can click on a link and, without any cognitive
> overhead, and with certainty, run a command to get back to the link i
> clicked on. to me this seems like basic hypertext ability, such as
> you might find in info or the back button on firefox.
>
> i
after fixing a typo i get "Warning: ring-ref called with 1 argument,
but requires
2"
i am limited in computer use.
On 2/24/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> I do not discuss your needs.
not sure what you mean by this. i was replying to your statements
about your usage and the global mark ring.
>It isn't crazy at all, and works surprising well in practice.
to make sure we are on the same page:
we seem to be dis
Hello,
Samuel Wales writes:
> in my usage, the current distinction between org-mark-ring and
> mark-ring does not disturb me at all. i agree that it would be good
> to be able to use global-mark-ring as a substitute for both
> global-mark-ring and org-mark-ring, but ONLY if it takes me to the
>
this is ot but another bit of over-fancification is that iirc you
can't set the mark twice successively in the same location. you might
not think there is a need for that, but there is [marking contiguous
regions], but even if there were not, the value of predictable
behavior with no special cases
in my usage, the current distinction between org-mark-ring and
mark-ring does not disturb me at all. i agree that it would be good
to be able to use global-mark-ring as a substitute for both
global-mark-ring and org-mark-ring, but ONLY if it takes me to the
exact location just like org-mark-ring d
Hello,
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 1/30/18, Allen Li wrote:
>> It does change org behavior, since the native mark ring
>> distinguishes local from global, whereas org-mark-ring does not.
>> With the proposed change, there won't be a single
>> org-mark-ring-goto, you would have to make sure you ca
On 1/30/18, Allen Li wrote:
> It does change org behavior, since the native mark ring
> distinguishes local from global, whereas org-mark-ring does not.
> With the proposed change, there won't be a single
> org-mark-ring-goto, you would have to make sure you call the
> right command out of pop-to-
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Samuel Wales wrote:
> On 1/30/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> With local ring, you do, not with global one. That is standard Emacs
>> behaviour.
>
> does this constitute a change in org behavior? i'd want the same
> behavior as now. it would be confusing to follow
On 1/30/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> With local ring, you do, not with global one. That is standard Emacs
> behaviour.
does this constitute a change in org behavior? i'd want the same
behavior as now. it would be confusing to follow a link, then follow
another link in the same buffer, then go b
Samuel Wales writes:
> do we really want "If the last global mark pushed was not in the current
> buffer,
> also push LOCATION on the global mark ring."? if it was in the
> current buffer then we don't go to the exact location?
With local ring, you do, not with global one. That is standard Ema
On 1/30/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Let me clarify. I just want to replace `org-mark-ring-push' with
> `push-mark'. The distinction between local and global mark rings are
> taken care of in the latter. Org doesn't need to mess with it.
>
> I hope that's clearer now.
yes, thanks.
do we really w
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 1/30/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>> org would have to push to both local and global it seems.
>>
>> `push-mark' would take care of this. So Org wouldn't need to.
>
> iiuc, i can't agree with you. org pushes marks onto the org mark ring
> in various places [and imo even
minor followup to prev post.
here is a place where org does not but ime is useful to push the mark.
org does similarly when you follow a link, for example.
i believe this should be done to the local and global mark rings.
diff --git a/lisp/org-agenda.el b/lisp/org-agenda.el
index 98f6034..d410d3
On 1/30/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> org would have to push to both local and global it seems.
>
> `push-mark' would take care of this. So Org wouldn't need to.
iiuc, i can't agree with you. org pushes marks onto the org mark ring
in various places [and imo even misses at least one place -- goi
Hello,
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 1/29/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> So, could we simply remove this part of Org and use Emacs facilities,
>> with their standard bindings (C-u C- and C-x C-) and behaviour
>> instead?
>
> org would have to push to both local and global it seems.
`push-mark' woul
On 1/29/18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> So, could we simply remove this part of Org and use Emacs facilities,
> with their standard bindings (C-u C- and C-x C-) and behaviour
> instead?
org would have to push to both local and global it seems. sounds good to me.
===
note also that for single buff
Same here.
Tim
Kaushal Modi writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:07 AM Allen Li wrote:
>
>> I was not aware Org had its own mark ring, and I see no use for it
>> personally when Emacs's mark ring exists.
>>
>
> Same here :)
>
> So also I wouldn't miss out if that feature is removed, C-u SPC wor
Kaushal Modi writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:07 AM Allen Li wrote:
>
>> I was not aware Org had its own mark ring, and I see no use for it
>> personally when Emacs's mark ring exists.
>>
>
> Same here :)
>
> So also I wouldn't miss out if that feature is removed, C-u SPC works
> great.
I was
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:07 AM Allen Li wrote:
> I was not aware Org had its own mark ring, and I see no use for it
> personally when Emacs's mark ring exists.
>
Same here :)
So also I wouldn't miss out if that feature is removed, C-u SPC works
great.
>
--
Kaushal Modi
I was not aware Org had its own mark ring, and I see no use for it
personally when Emacs's mark ring exists.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As the title suggests, I'm wondering if we could remove Org's own
> implementation of the mark ring, for some reasons :
34 matches
Mail list logo
