section continuation (was: Is the cascading logic of outlines a feature, or a design bug?)

[abq@bitrot.link]

tomas wrote:
> I already proposed
> having one canonical heading meaning "back to that level", say dash
> or dot

> Now for that to be useful, you'd have to gather enough users who
> like the idea and use the convention. It's a communication medium,
> after all :-)

The question isn't only how people interpret their files, but also how 
their software interprets their files.

Is anyone here aware of anyone who uses a lone dash or dot or comma 
heading for some other purpose? IOW, if future Org versions were to 
treat it as having some special meaning, would it break backward 
compatibility in practice?

So if you fold/select/delete/move/promote/demote/etc a section, it 
processes not only all the subsections, but also all the following 
lone-dash sections at the section's level. If you number sections, 
lone-dash sections don't get numbers.

If you prefer the standard outliner behavior, then just never use 
lone-dash sections.

To bikeshed the character, dash is commonly used in tree viewers to 
indicate a folded heading (with plus sign for unfolded), so maybe a 
different one is better for section continuation. For continuation, 
comma would be more suggestive than period.