Re: Refiling list items

[Jeff Horn <jrhorn424@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 20:20, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> Jeff Horn <jrhorn424@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What would be the specifications of that function? Would it only send
>> > the item at point to the end of the headline specified through the
>> > refile interface?
>>
>> I hope its clear that this is all above my head. I know enough to make
>> suggestions, but not contribute to implementing them. That makes me a
>> free-rider, but a free-rider that recognizes he's at the mercy of
>> others' talents.
>>
>
> Ah, no - you don't get off that easily! This is not "implementing"
> anything.  He is asking about your expectations:
>
> I haven't read the thread (apologies) but ISTR you provided such a
> description to begin with. What Nicolas is asking is: what should happen
> in other cases of interest? You may want to cover just that one special
> case, but an implementation has to worry about *all* cases[fn:1]:
> otherwise, there *will* be bug reports in the very near future and guess
> who their target will be (hint: it won't be you :-) )

I see, thanks Nicholas. As a start, in a subjectively ideal world,
org-refile-list-item would work on list items:

1) and their children to arbitrary depth
2) in the current buffer, or any agenda file
3) using either path-like headline specification or IDO completion

But I'd settle for an in-buffer restriction like Florian used. I just
noticed org-goto makes the manual workaround a bit easier.

I guess this really amounts to the first time I've ever been convinced
that "treating list items like headlines" would be useful to me. At
least, it feels like list items might benefit from being a proper
subset of headlines. I don't remember what the disadvantages of such a
move would be, but I suspect there's a lot of tacit knowledge in the
codebase already.

> Hope-your-sense-of-humor-is-working-today-ly yours,

It is. :)

-- 
Jeffrey Horn
http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/