Re: [O] M-RET inside the first second-level heading of the first first-level heading

[John Hendy]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Carsten Dominik
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 7.5.2013, at 23:34, John Hendy <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> John Hendy <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jisang,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jisang Yoo <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Place cursor at the beginning of "** bacon" and press M-RET and org 
>>>>>> creates
>>>>>> a first-level heading.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should now be fixed.  Thanks for reporting this,
>>>>
>>>> There were some same/similar/related issues as well, and I'm still not
>>>> getting perfect results.
>>>>
>>>> Using a minimal config (below), if I create this in a new file
>>>>
>>>> * test
>>>> ** test1
>>>> ** test2
>>>>
>>>> and then fold on * test, I get this:
>>>>
>>>> * test...2
>>>
>>> I do have (setq require-final-newline t) in my config, which prevents
>>> this.  What happens is this: if you don't have the config above, the
>>> folding will get wrong and display the "2" from the end of the buffer.
>>>
>>>> Also, after navigating to the end of * test...2 (with it folded) and
>>>> issuing M-RET, I get a new second level heading after ** test2. I
>>>> would have expected a new first level headline since I did M-RET on a
>>>> first level headline. Or is that the default behavior?
>>>
>>> If you are before the "..." ellipsis, you are on a first level
>>> headline and M-RET will insert a first level headline.  Otherwise you
>>> are on a second level headline ("test2") and it will insert a second
>>> level headline.
>>
>> Ah, that now makes sense. But... just to be clear, take this case:
>>
>> * Headline1
>> - list1
>> - list2
>>
>> Now fold it:
>>
>> * Headline1<cursor>...
>>
>> If I do M-RET at <cursor>, I get:
>>
>> * Headline1
>> * <cursor>
>> - list1
>> - list2
>>
>> Is that how it's supposed to work? My use case is generally to have a
>> new headline after * Headline1 *and* it's contents, not putting
>> contents inside the new headline.
>>
>> C-RET seems to behave more like I'd expect. In reading the manual, I
>> think I was just confused on usage based on the definition of C-RET,
>> however this in the description of M-RET is confusing:
>>
>> #+begin_quote
>> If the command is used at the end of a folded subtree (i.e., behind
>> the ellipses at the end of a headline), then a headline like the
>> current one will be inserted after the end of the subtree. Calling
>> this command with C-u C-u will unconditionally respect the headline's
>> content and create a new item at the end of the parent subtree.
>> #+end_quote
>>
>> It makes it seem like my original case in which the cursor is behind
>> (after?) the ... should insert a same-level headline after the end of
>> the current subtree (which I would assume means that headline and all
>> contents). Am I reading that incorrectly? It doesn't really talk about
>> the behavior if you're before the ellipsis.
>
> Yes, this is also a bit confusing.  I think it would be desirable if it
> worked as described in the manual, but this is not what is happening.
> For now, I fixed the manual.
>

Much appreciated, and I'll be following the other M-RET and C-RET
thread as it seems some of this behavior will change in the near
future.


Thanks!
John

> - Carsten
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying,
>> John
>>
>>>
>>>> If so, I guess my only concern is the folding of the end of a headline
>>>> if there's no hard return after it into the ellipsis of it's parent.
>>>
>>> Yes.  Maybe M-RET could/should handle this corner-case but since
>>> `org-insert-heading' is deserving a full rewrite, I'm not going to
>>> try to handle this corner-case myself... let's just keep it in mind
>>> when doing the rewrite.  Thanks for spotting it,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bastien
>>
>