Re: Survey: changing a few default settings for Org 9.4

[Bastien]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> I don't understand. C-c C-, combination is as fast as Org Tempo:
>
>   C-c C-, s   : 3 keys
>   < s TAB     : 3 keys

I'm tempted to count the number of fingers involved ;)

Which may not be *that* stupid when considering "fast" typing.
But eh, I don't want vimers to come and laugh at us.

> We could even add an "expert" interface that would not display the
> help menu for an even faster C-c C-, experience.

That's a good idea, yes.  I can even imagine that M-TAB can expand <*
using org-insert-structure-template only, and they we don't have the
problem of requiring this problematic tempo library.

>> M-x customize-option RET org-modules seems okay to me.
>
> Then you may belong to the happy few that happen to find Customize
> interface "okay". :>

Well, no, I'm not one of these happy few...

> I was speaking about "init.el" hacking. One must be cautious when
> setting Org modules: it requires to be set before Org is loaded.

Ok, fair point.

> Also, my question is still open: is there any strong reason to provide,
> out of the box, two template mechanisms in Org? This is genuine
> question.

No, there is no good reason for two template mechanism, and if we can
rely on org-insert-structure-template only, while still being able to
complete <* at the beginning of the line, that'd be perfect to me.

> In any case, I don't think it is just a matter of personal preference,
> like defcustoms. There should be some clear design decision behind the
> answer.

I get your point.  What would you think of this idea: (1) only one
function for inserting templates, but callable in two different ways,
one interactive (C-c C-, possibly with expert mode) and one by just
typing and hitting M-TAB.

In a word: I just want to add a simpler completion mechanism to the
current template insertion mechanism.  If we can get rid of org-tempo
from Org's core, that's even better.

> Let's un-bundle this issue from the rest of the poll, and think
> about it separately.

Agreed.

> Hmmmm. This is another topic.

Yes, let's raise this issue later on.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien