Re: Suggested Syntax for cancelled checkboxes: [-] as non-blocking dependency

[Ihor Radchenko]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

>> So, to me the main use case to have an explicit cancel, is when I have a 
>> long list, and to remember that I stated it as "cancelled".
>> If we go that way, having no other nice idea at the moment, I quite like 
>> the [C] which is explicit although language specific.
>
> ... if it is possible with the current implementation, we could
> introduce an official convention that any single (upper case?)
> character between the brackets is interpreted as a non-open
> checkbox. So any user is able to choose her character of choice even
> language-dependent.

I do not like the idea of pre-defining a meaning of an arbitrary single
character. This will leave too less flexibility for future.

As for cancelled state, it makes sense to add it. I have seen cancelled
state in other outliners. However, adding a new checkbox state will
involve changing Org syntax
(https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html#Items). Also, list
implementation in Org is not particularly modular---someone will need to
go across the code and make sure that new checkbox state is not going to
break anything. The manual will also need to be updated.

To conclude, if there is sufficient interest, I do not see why not. But
it will be an involved change in Org code someone will need to perform.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92