[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Orgmode] A puzzle to solve: saved categories vs. tags
From: |
Bastien |
Subject: |
Re: [Orgmode] A puzzle to solve: saved categories vs. tags |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:27:00 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux) |
John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:
> My desire: To hit C-u C-c \ and have it prompt me for the "entity" its
> going to search for. The possible entities are TAGS, or a property
> name. Then it asks for the text string, as usual. The result should
> make it possible for me to see all entries that came from a specific
> category or group of categories.
For now C-u C-c \ does something different:
,----[ (info "(Org)Tag searches") ]
| `C-c \'
| Create a sparse tree with all headlines matching a tags search.
| With a `C-u' prefix argument, ignore headlines that are not a TODO
| line.
`----
I'm not using C-u C-c \ that much, mostly because I use agenda views a
lot. But your request to make the C-c \ query interactive -- whatever
key it is bound to -- sounds nice.
As you probable know, you can already perform complex searches like:
C-c \ address@hidden"code"/NEXT
This will search for headlines with the tag "Urgent", without the tag
"@Work", with category "code" and which TODO keyword is "NEXT". Yes,
that's quite complex and I guess we sometime prefer not to care about
the syntax of the query, but rather be prompted for it.
If Carsten implements this, I think all the search facilities in Org
will need a bit of uniformization/clarification. For now we have:
| key | function | knows about | C-u |
|---------+----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| C-c / | org-occur | regexp | |
| C-c \ | org-tags-sparse-tree | tags, and more | restrict to TODO |
| C-c C-v | org-show-todo-tree | todo keywords | ask for keyword |
A few ideas about this:
1. I tend to use C-c \ a lot than C-c / -- but I find the C-c / key much
more convenient. I guess it's far too late to switch, but still.
2. AFAIK org-tags-sparse-tree is more powerful than org-show-todo-tree.
If we add the possibility to build interactive queries, it will
definitely become *the* universal search interface for Org.
3. Being able to restrict to TODO entries when searching for tags is
nice, we should keep it somehow. Maybe org-show-todo-tree could
do something similar by restricting the search to tags?
If I sum up, here are the search capacities that we could end up with:
1. Search for a regexp
2. Search for a complex query
3. Prompt interactively for a complex query
4. Show all tagged entries
5. Prompt for a specific tag
6. Prompt for a specific tag (restricting to TODO entries)
7. Show all TODO entries
8. Prompt for a specific TODO
9. Prompt for a specific TODO (restricting to tagged entries)
All this might need to be put in the search functions somehow:
{0,1,2,3} would be the "universal" search functions
{4,5,6} would be the tag search
{7,8,9} would be the TODO search
Well, sorry for such a long input, I hope it's still useful.
--
Bastien