Re: [O] [RFC] Simplify `org-show-context' configuration

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Sebastien Vauban <address@hidden>
writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> Sebastien Vauban writes:
>>
>>> Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them
>>> I mean?  I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be
>>> good to hide the ones which are not significant.  Not a very sharp
>>> advice on this, though.
>>
>> I have no strong opinion about this, but I think it would be odd if
>> they were invisible. After all, this is the basic structure of the
>> document.
>
> Yes, that's why I'm not so pushy about it. OTOH, it's nice to hide them
> when you have a lot of level-1 sections -- I remember that being asked
> here by someone.
>
> But, once again, for me, it's not that important.

I'd prefer not to do that -- it's easy to get confused, and we've got
narrowing when we need to really focus.

>>>> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if
>>>> point is within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for
>>>> example, `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on
>>>> a headline, since only latter will show the entry.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know
>>> which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub
>>> sub sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections".
>>>
>>> With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage',
>>> `full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me:
>>>
>>>   * H1
>>>   * H2
>>>   ** Sub 2
>>>   *** Sub sub 2
>>>       Text
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> I can add `ancestors' view, which would basically be `lineage' without
>> siblings.
>
> That'd certainly be good -- and match my current Org config.
>
> And, if I may, to be sure we are somehow "symmetrical", it'd be good to
> have as well:
>
>      * H1
>      * H2
>      ** Sub 2
>      *** Sub sub 1
>      *** Sub sub 2
>          Text
>      *** Sub sub 3
>      *** Sub sub 4
>
> That is "ancestors" + the siblings of the leaf entry.

This is the view I'd be interested in having, as well.

Thanks!
Eric