Hi Nicolas and Rustom,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> I have no objection, with appropriate documentation, obviously.
>
> Be careful, though, as some functions need to be updated accordingly:
> `org-list-struct', `org-element--list-struct',
> `org-at-item-description-p', `org-list-item-body-column',
Hello,
Gregor Zattler writes:
> I'd like to be able to use a mix of "-" or "+" in list items as to
> indicate positive respective negative aspects of something:
>
> * should org-mode support a mix of "+" and "-" as the first char in plain
> lists?
> + would be a great to indicate positive an
Hi Bastien,
* Bastien [30. May. 2014]:
[...]
> For now description lists accept both "-" and "+". I'm all for
> allowing only "-" so that we could use
[...]
> in your example.
>
> What do you and others think?
I'd like to be able to use a mix of "-" or "+" in list items as to
indicate positive
Hello,
Bastien writes:
> For now description lists accept both "-" and "+". I'm all for
> allowing only "-" so that we could use
>
> + \(+\) :: Int → Int → Int
> + \(-\) :: Int → Int →Int
> + \(\leq\) :: Int → Int → Bool
> + \(=\) :: Int → Int → Bool
>
> in your example.
>
> What do you and ot
Nick Dokos writes:
> I usually just do
>
> # +FOO
Well, I do
# #+FOO so that uncommenting makes this right again.
--
Bastien
Rustom Mody writes:
> David Loyall wrote:
>
>> >[...] if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there
>> > will always be legitimate uses that will not be addressable.
>
>> +1
>>
>> As a lowly user, I have often wished for a hypothetical function called
>> org-escapify-region. (And of
>>
David Loyall wrote:
> >[...] if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there
> > will always be legitimate uses that will not be addressable.
> +1
>
> As a lowly user, I have often wished for a hypothetical function called
> org-escapify-region. (And of
> course the reverse function.)
J
Hi Rustom,
Rustom Mody writes:
> Anyways… if you are doing this just for me (!) very kind of you!
Well, I will make a separate thread asking if other users would be
fine with the change -- but glad you found the solution above.
--
Bastien
>[...] if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there
> will always be legitimate uses that will not be addressable.
+1
As a lowly user, I have often wished for a hypothetical function called
org-escapify-region. (And of course the reverse function.)
I've never even looked for one, tho
Hi Bastien
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Bastien wrote:
> Hi Rustom,
>
> Rustom Mody writes:
>
> > - \(+\):: Int → Int → Int
> > - \(-\):: Int → Int →Int
> > - \(\leq\):: Int → Int → Bool
> > - \(=\):: Int → Int → Bool
>
> 1. \(+\) :: Int → Int → Int
> 2. \(-\) :: Int → Int →Int
> 3. \(\leq\
Hi Rustom,
Rustom Mody writes:
> - \(+\):: Int → Int → Int
> - \(-\):: Int → Int →Int
> - \(\leq\):: Int → Int → Bool
> - \(=\):: Int → Int → Bool
1. \(+\) :: Int → Int → Int
2. \(-\) :: Int → Int →Int
3. \(\leq\) :: Int → Int → Bool
4. \(=\) :: Int → Int → Bool
would do -- but this is not ent
11 matches
Mail list logo
