Re: [RFC] Simplify `org-show-context' configuration

[Sebastien Vauban <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>]

Hello Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> As explained in its commit message, the following patch is an attempt at
> simplifying `org-show-context' configuration by offering a set of
> 5 predefined views to choose from instead of setting 4 different
> variables (`org-show-following-heading', `org-show-siblings',
> `org-show-entry-below' and `org-show-hierarchy-above'). These views are
>
>   minimal        show current headline, and entry below if needed
>   local          show current headline, entry below and next headline
>   lineage        show direct ancestors and all siblings of current headline;
>                  show entry only if required
>   canonical      show direct ancestors and all of their siblings; show entry
>                  only if required
>   full           show direct ancestors, all their siblings and entry
>
> To sum it up, if original buffer is
>
>   * H1
>   * H2
>   ** Sub 1
>   ** Sub 2
>   *** Sub sub 1
>   *** Sub sub 2
>       Text
>   *** Sub sub 3
>   *** Sub sub 4
>   ** Sub 3
>
> and match is on "Text", minimal is
>
>   * H1
>   * H2
>     * Sub sub 2
>       Text
>
> `local' is
>
>   * H1
>   * H2
>   *** Sub sub 2
>       Text
>   *** Sub sub 3
>
> `lineage' is
>
>   * H1
>   * H2
>   ** Sub 2
>   *** Sub sub 1
>   *** Sub sub 2
>       Text
>   *** Sub sub 3
>   *** Sub sub 4
>
> `canonical' and `full' are
>
>   * H1
>   * H2
>   ** Sub 1
>   ** Sub 2
>   *** Sub sub 1
>   *** Sub sub 2
>       Text
>   *** Sub sub 3
>   *** Sub sub 4
>   ** Sub 3
>
> Note that neither `canonical' nor `full' are possible to obtain with the
> 4 original variables.

Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them I mean?
I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be good to hide
the ones which are not significant.  Not a very sharp advice on this,
though.

> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if point is
> within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for example,
> `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on a headline, since
> only latter will show the entry.
>
> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed.
>
> WDYT?

My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know
which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub sub
sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections".

With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage',
`full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  * H1
  * H2
  ** Sub 2
  *** Sub sub 2
      Text
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

WDYT?

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban