Checkboxes and intermediate state

Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Chris Randle]

Hi Carsten

Until recently, if I used `C-u C-c C-c' with the cursor on the line with
Item B in the following example:

- [X] Item A
- [ ] Item B
- [ ] Item C

I'd get:

- [X] Item A
- [-] Item B
- [ ] Item C

Now (6.21b) I get:

- [X] Item A
- Item B
- [ ] Item C

Think this may be an unintentional side-effect of the recent changes to
the list code. Hope so, because I quite like using that mark to register
the item that I'm working on currently - an "in progress" marker. The
fact that it's taken me weeks to spot this shows how often any progress
is made in my world!

-- 
Chris Randle
Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b

Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Chris,

this was an intentional change, I thought that a
simple command to get rid of a checkbox was more
important.

I have put setting to [-] back in now, but you will need a
double prefix

     C-u C-u C-c C-c

HTH

- Carsten

On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Chris Randle wrote:

> Hi Carsten
>
> Until recently, if I used `C-u C-c C-c' with the cursor on the line  
> with
> Item B in the following example:
>
> - [X] Item A
> - [ ] Item B
> - [ ] Item C
>
> I'd get:
>
> - [X] Item A
> - [-] Item B
> - [ ] Item C
>
> Now (6.21b) I get:
>
> - [X] Item A
> - Item B
> - [ ] Item C
>
> Think this may be an unintentional side-effect of the recent changes  
> to
> the list code. Hope so, because I quite like using that mark to  
> register
> the item that I'm working on currently - an "in progress" marker. The
> fact that it's taken me weeks to spot this shows how often any  
> progress
> is made in my world!
>
> -- 
> Chris Randle
> Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

RE: Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Chris Randle]

Hi Carsten

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> this was an intentional change, I thought that a
> simple command to get rid of a checkbox was more
> important.
> 
> I have put setting to [-] back in now, but you will need a double
> prefix 


Thanks for doing that. The 6.22b manual needs updating on p46 (half-way
down).

I hate to come across as awkward, but I'd like to find out how others
use checkboxes and their opinion of this change.

I use checkboxes daily. Largely as a sub-set of mini-todos under a main
todo heading. For example, I have a computer in for a fix, and as I work
on it removing bits or changing settings, I'll quickly add a new line
(`M-S-RET') to remind me to revert the changes afterwards. Mini-example
of being part-way working through the finished list with a defrag kicked
off:

*** TODO Finish up
    - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver
    - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC
    - [-] Defrag
    - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854

I've not used the new ability to convert lines to/from checkboxes,
although I can see how it could be useful, especially on a block of
items. But, there are a couple of things I'd like to get a feel for from
others using checkboxes heavily:

Taking the example above, and doing `C-u C-c C-c' on the defrag line, I
don't see why this result

*** TODO Finish up
    - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver
    - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC
    - Defrag
    - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854

should be more important/useful/common than the previous pending state.

Converting items to/from checkboxes, I should have thought, would have
been something done once, whereas manipulating the state of a checkbox
was something that is done more often. So I think that `C-u C-c C-c'
should stay as toggle pending state and `C-u C-u C-c C-c' (less
frequently used?) should be remove checkbox. Also, why then doesn't
(currently) `C-u C-c C-c' put a checkbox back in?

I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your fabulous
code. I'm so grateful to you for Org-mode - it's miraculous. I just want
to see if my usage is a minority style.

-- 
Chris Randle
Windows XP Pro SP3 - GNU Emacs 22.1.1 - Org-mode 6.21b

Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Chris,

On Feb 15, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Chris Randle wrote:

> Mini-example
> of being part-way working through the finished list with a defrag  
> kicked
> off:
>
> *** TODO Finish up
>    - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver
>    - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC
>    - [-] Defrag
>    - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854
>
> I've not used the new ability to convert lines to/from checkboxes,
> although I can see how it could be useful, especially on a block of
> items. But, there are a couple of things I'd like to get a feel for  
> from
> others using checkboxes heavily:
>
> Taking the example above, and doing `C-u C-c C-c' on the defrag  
> line, I
> don't see why this result
>
> *** TODO Finish up
>    - [X] Uninstall WinPcap driver
>    - [X] Uninstall UltraVNC
>    - Defrag
>    - [ ] Reset screen resolution to 1280x854
>
> should be more important/useful/common than the previous pending  
> state.

The reason for this assumption is that as of now, you are the only
person *I know* who uses this have-ready state of checkboxes.
Given the fact that I every now and then do need to remove
a checkbox, this seemed the logical choice to me.

But I am glad you bring it up, it is perfectly possible that
I see it wrong and that it would be better to reverse the
action of single and double prefix argument.

> Converting items to/from checkboxes, I should have thought, would have
> been something done once, whereas manipulating the state of a checkbox
> was something that is done more often. So I think that `C-u C-c C-c'
> should stay as toggle pending state and `C-u C-u C-c C-c' (less
> frequently used?) should be remove checkbox. Also, why then doesn't
> (currently) `C-u C-c C-c' put a checkbox back in?

The reason for this is technical.  `C-c C-c' is a context-sensitive key.
If there is a checkbox, the context is "checkbox" and it calls
org-toggle-checkbox, which does do the interpretation of the prefix
argument.

If the context is just "item", not "checkbox", so it is less clear
to the context detector what should be done.

You can try this by using the direct key for org-toggle-checkbox,
`C-c C-x C-b'.  It will re-insert a checkbox (in fact even without
a prefix arg because there is nothing else to do).

> I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your  
> fabulous
> code.

Do not worry about this.  I do have a side job as a scientist and am
quite used to constructive criticism.  :-)

- Carsten

Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:


[snipped 47 lines]

>> I do so much want to stress how I don't want to criticise your
>> fabulous code.
>
> Do not worry about this.  I do have a side job as a scientist and am
> quite used to constructive criticism.  :-)
>
> - Carsten

Which brings me to the biggest criticism.  I have this task "Go Make
Tea" and it's been a year and Org has still *NOT* made tea.

What sort of code is this?   :-)

 sivaram
 -- 

Re: Checkboxes and intermediate state

[Eddward DeVilla]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> The reason for this assumption is that as of now, you are the only
> person *I know* who uses this have-ready state of checkboxes.
> Given the fact that I every now and then do need to remove
> a checkbox, this seemed the logical choice to me.
>
> But I am glad you bring it up, it is perfectly possible that
> I see it wrong and that it would be better to reverse the
> action of single and double prefix argument.

Thanks to this thread, I'm now aware of these commands and will make
good use of both.

Thanks!
Edd