Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

If I attempt to move headline 2b above 2a (M-up)

* 1
** 2a
** 2b

#  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYY

the result is

* 1
** 2b

#  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
** 2a


The number of lines between ** 2b and # LocalWords makes no difference 
and the headline level makes no difference. Location in the file makes 
no difference.
Flyspell-mode on


GNU Emacs 24.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.0.6002) of 2013-03-17 on MARVIN
Org-mode version 8.2.6 (release_8.2.6-1022-gc23d9e @ 
c:/cygwin/home/owner/.elisp/org-mode/lisp/)
Windows Vista SP2

Charlie Millar

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Bastien]

Hi Charles,

Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:

> If I attempt to move headline 2b above 2a (M-up)
>
> * 1
> ** 2a
> ** 2b
>
> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYY
>
> the result is
>
> * 1
> ** 2b
>
> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
> ** 2a

Yes, #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY is part of the ** 2b headline.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

Hi Bastien,
Bastien wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> If I attempt to move headline 2b above 2a (M-up)
>>
>> * 1
>> ** 2a
>> ** 2b
>>
>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYY
>>
>> the result is
>>
>> * 1
>> ** 2b
>>
>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
>> ** 2a
>
> Yes, #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY is part of the ** 2b headline.
>
Should it be as such, since # LocalWords since it is associated with 
ispell/flyspell and really has nothing to do with headline ** 2b?

Of course what I neglected to mention was that I would expect, which 
would be

* 1
** 2b
** 2a

#  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY

Regards,
Charlie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Brian van den Broek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1256 bytes --]

On May 23, 2014 12:02 PM, "Charles Millar" <millarc@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Bastien,
>
> Bastien wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> If I attempt to move headline 2b above 2a (M-up)
>>>
>>> * 1
>>> ** 2a
>>> ** 2b
>>>
>>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYY
>>>
>>> the result is
>>>
>>> * 1
>>> ** 2b
>>>
>>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
>>> ** 2a
>>
>>
>> Yes, #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY is part of the ** 2b headline.
>>
> Should it be as such, since # LocalWords since it is associated with
ispell/flyspell and really has nothing to do with headline ** 2b?
>
> Of course what I neglected to mention was that I would expect, which
would be
>
> * 1
> ** 2b
> ** 2a
>
> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
>
> Regards,
> Charlie

Hi Charlie and all,

As I understand the parsing of an org file, if you have a heading of level
n, everything below it until a heading of level m, m < n, is it its
subtree. Org doesn't know that you want that line at the bottom of buffer
(say) and not associated with the current headline and current active
subtrees.

Many of my org files have a final top level config headline to hold various
in-buffer settings. Would that work for your case?

Best,

Brian vdB

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1927 bytes --]

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

Hi, again, Bastien,
Bastien wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> If I attempt to move headline 2b above 2a (M-up)
>>
>> * 1
>> ** 2a
>> ** 2b
>>
>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYY
>>
>> the result is
>>
>> * 1
>> ** 2b
>>
>> #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY
>> ** 2a
>
> Yes, #  LocalWords:  XXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYY is part of the ** 2b headline.
>

I now realize that since # LocalWords is considered part of a previous 
headline, any refile to a file that contains # LocalWords (or possibly 
any similar special construct) is placed after # LocalWords.

I would expect that the refile, at the very least, would be placed 
between the last headline and # LocalWords.

Possibly this situation could cause errors would be in exporting.

Best, Charlie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Bastien]

Hi Charles,

There will be no problem with comments at export time since comments
are not exported.

The way it works now is deeply into the ADN of Org, *everything*
within a subtree moves with this subtree, and nothing is *not* part
of a subtree (except text before the first headline.)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

Bastien and all,

Bastien wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> There will be no problem with comments at export time since comments
> are not exported.

Thanks for the pointer concerning that # is comment in all exporting 
situations.

>
> The way it works now is deeply into the ADN of Org, *everything*
> within a subtree moves with this subtree, and nothing is *not* part
> of a subtree (except text before the first headline.)
>

I am only now teaching myself emacs lisp and common lisp, mostly so I 
can at least try to understand the code. Based on Brian van den Broeck's 
message and my observation following his message, is it possible, 
actually is it worth the time and effort, for Org Mode only, to make "# 
LocalWords:" into a "#+ LocalWords:" into a top level buffer setting, 
and furthermore any additions would be placed into the top level setting 
and not at the end of the buffer?

Charlie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Bastien]

Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:

> I am only now teaching myself emacs lisp and common lisp, mostly so I
> can at least try to understand the code. Based on Brian van den
> Broeck's message and my observation following his message, is it
> possible, actually is it worth the time and effort, for Org Mode only,
> to make "# LocalWords:" into a "#+ LocalWords:" into a top level
> buffer setting, and furthermore any additions would be placed into the
> top level setting and not at the end of the buffer?

Perhaps -- I don't know what LocalWords is supposed to do.
I'd say: go ahead and experiment, and tell us if it's work?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

Bastien wrote:
> Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> I am only now teaching myself emacs lisp and common lisp, mostly so I
>> can at least try to understand the code. Based on Brian van den
>> Broeck's message and my observation following his message, is it
>> possible, actually is it worth the time and effort, for Org Mode only,
>> to make "# LocalWords:" into a "#+ LocalWords:" into a top level
>> buffer setting, and furthermore any additions would be placed into the
>> top level setting and not at the end of the buffer?
>
> Perhaps -- I don't know what LocalWords is supposed to do.
> I'd say: go ahead and experiment, and tell us if it's work?
>

OK I'll try.

Charlie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Sebastien Vauban]

Hello,

> Perhaps -- I don't know what LocalWords is supposed to do.

"# LocalWords:" allows to add words in your dictionary for that file only.

The syntax is "LocalWords:" prefixed by the current "comment prefix".
Hence, I don't really understand why we would want to transform it in
"#+ LocalWords:".

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Bastien]

Sebastien Vauban <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
writes:

> The syntax is "LocalWords:" prefixed by the current "comment prefix".
> Hence, I don't really understand why we would want to transform it in
> "#+ LocalWords:".

Yes.  Putting this in a separate configuration section at the end of
the file is probably the way to go.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Charles Millar]

Hi Sebastien, Bastien and all,

Bastien wrote:
>
>
> Sebastien Vauban <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
> writes:
>
>> The syntax is "LocalWords:" prefixed by the current "comment prefix".
>> Hence, I don't really understand why we would want to transform it in
>> "#+ LocalWords:".
Yes. Last evening I realized that changing "# LocalWords:" to
"#+ LocalWords:" was a terrible idea since it would be of no use for ispell.

>
> [snip] Putting this in a separate configuration section at the end of
> the file is probably the way to go.
>

However, I thought I would try to place # LocalWords: at the top of a 
file between any #+ KEYWORDS: and the first * headline. That way it does 
not become part of a tree/subtree.

Is this OK?

Charlie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Possible bug - shifting headline - hashmark and what follows is considered part of headline that is shifted

[Bastien]

Charles Millar <millarc@verizon.net> writes:

> Is this OK?

Please go ahead and tell us :)

-- 
 Bastien