From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Wales Subject: many an agenda keyword search improvement Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:36:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20524da71003130936q45de8550g8a92e017a55bb822@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NqVGQ-0003uC-8f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:38 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51213 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NqVGO-0003tP-TI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NqVGN-0003ax-4e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:36 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:44112) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NqVGN-0003ao-2G for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:35 -0500 Received: by gyb13 with SMTP id 13so156157gyb.0 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:36:34 -0800 (PST) List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Here are agenda suggestions for org keyword searches that I have been collecting. All of them would be very useful (to me). Is it better to use separate emails? 1. Colorize headlines as in the outline. When I search for "forums" in org using M-x org-agenda-dispatch s, I get an agenda that does not colorize the italic part of the headline below. * NAKA [#A] /email and forum/ forums :now:refile: If it could be colorized normally, I would be able to find the headline much faster. 2. Colorize matches. Some hits are from headlines (i.e. "forums" is in the headline), but others are from body text. These are not distinguished. Also, regexp searches do not show what matched, and you can't tell where the match is in a headline easily. These problems are solved by colorizing matches (e.g. using the same face that isearch does). 3. Pre-seed isearch and isearch-regexp. If you RET on a headline, you sometimes want to search for the search expression (e.g. "forums") in the body text. (Optionally) pre-seeding isearch and isearch-regexp with the search expression would allow you to not have to type it. This would turn the entire expression, such as "alpha beta {gamma\|linoleic}", into a regular expression. 4. E-like mode for body matches. If matches are in body text, perhaps the matching lines can be shown under the headilnes with the matches highlighted. 5. Link type for agenda search. Sometimes you want a todo item to do an agenda keyword search. 6. Colorize matches in other window. When you show the outline buffer in the other window, colorize matches there. 7. Search within results. The / command is useful for searching for tags within results (including body text) without having to incur the overhead of an entire agenda search again. I'd like the same thing for keyword searches. Searches are very slow on my system, so I never refine searches. But I would if I had this capability. 8. Or search within results and do other stuff. I also have a proposal for an idea that supersedes #7 and also allows more functionality. I alluded to it in previous email in a footnote. Suppose we could have a "next command operates on the selected entries (or ALL displayed entries if none selected)" command? This could fold the / command and the command I am requesting into a single facility that can then be used for other purposes also. To do a todo search within a keyword search, you just do the keyword search, run the command, then do a todo search. Or any other command. It could be on /. Current / behavior could be done with two /es (first says next command is within results and second says do tag search). 9. Search in attachments. I have already covered this in another email. Perhaps the discussion could be revived if there is enough interest. Thanks. Samuel -- Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb? A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years] ========== Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html