Re: [O] M-RET and C-RET

[Michael Brand]

Hi Nicolas

Thank you for all the explanations.

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:33, Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:
> Though, from what I read,
> I think that you really mean to argue for a change of the default value
> of `org-M-RET-may-split-line' (to, i.e. '((default . t) (item))) not for
> a change of code.

With my better understanding of the "insert anchor" (see below): Yes.

> I'm not talking about your cursor shape, but about Emacs' point
> representation. Point is never on "j" in Emacs, whatever you want to
> prefer. To convince yourself, you can experiment with:
>
>               M-: (char-to-string (char-after (point)))

Interesting. At least when referring with the word "point" I better
switch...

> I fail to see any logic here: point is still before the contents of the
> item, but M-RET adds a new item below nonetheless. I would call that
> a convenient hack. But it's just me.

Finally I got it and this lets me readjust my opinion too. Before I
could only think of the list item bullet as the "insert anchor" for
the decision whether to insert above or below. Now I realize that
there is also the different and also valid perspective to have just
the first character of the item text as this "insert anchor".

> Moreover, with `org-M-RET-may-split-line' set to nil (at least for
> items), this hack is totally useless, as there's plenty of room to call
> M-RET from (like the end of _line_) when one wants to add an item below.
>
> So again, aren't you arguing for a change of `org-M-RET-may-split-line'
> value instead?

With my better understanding of the "insert anchor": Yes.

> I can see the consistency with headlines, but not the simplicity. Also,
> from my obviously biased point of view, I could argue that you may
> modify headlines' behaviour to be more consistent with plain lists
> instead ;)

Indeed. Seriously, for me this would now be the better way to go to
increase consistency, if this is of a broader interest than only mine.

> Then the documentation with regards to that variable may be
> defective. How do you think it can be improved?

I don't see a problem with the doc itself. More with me not reading
and remembering the right thing at the right time. But your suggestion
to change the default of org-M-RET-may-split-line seems the right
thing to me. My vote for the _default_ is

(defcustom org-M-RET-may-split-line '((default . t) (item))

Who is interested to vote for a default?

The Org-mode customization survey from January 2009 on Worg showed
only one user differing from the default still in use: nil for
headline (John Wiegley, CCed). The other 35 had the default (I claim
that some of them don't care).

With a default of nil for item I would not have followed the wrong
path of using "-" and TAB to insert list items and not have made the
noise related to this and more.

Michael