[Orgmode] Re: keys and command name info

[Dan Davison]

Dan Davison <address@hidden> writes:

> Gregor Zattler <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi Andreas, org-mode developers,
>> * Andreas Burtzlaff <address@hidden> [09. Aug. 2010]:
>>> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> I have put a version of the manual as modified by Andreas here:
>>>>
>>>>    http://orgmode.org/org-manual-with-command-names.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Not all the command names are in there, but quite a few are.
>>>> I'd like to hear from more people
>>>>
>>>> - if they would like to have the names there (i.e. if it would
>>>>   help them finding a command)
>
> I would like the command names in the manual.
>
> - Emacs-lisp has a lovely tradition of naming functions *very*
>   descriptively and not being afraid to use long names in the interests
>   of accuracy. It's a shame to lose all that by displaying only key
>   sequences. It's a linguistic world of its own and I like being exposed
>   to it.
> - While one can do C-h k, that's not the same as the way one learns the
>   function names by skimming the manual

Also, it does not add length to the HTML version of the manual, because
the key sequences are already on a line of their own. And the same is
true for a certain proportion of the pdf entries (when the key sequence
is long, then it seems to go on its own line).


>
>>>> - if the position (first thing in the command description)
>>>>   is right, or if it would be better to have it
>>>>      - last thing in the description
>>>>      - or after the first sentence, this is how the GNUS manual
>>>>        does it.
>
> I definitely would want them out on a line of their own with the key
> sequence. I liked the right-aligned model.
>
> Or if not right-aligned, is it possible not to have the comma? Maybe a
> different font?
>
> Dan
>
>>> 
>>> Having the function names in the manual at all makes it look a bit
>>> overloaded and might lose us a couple of newbies, I think. Personally, I
>>> would not have use for it.
>>> 
>>> If the names are included in the manual I strongly object to them being
>>> at the beginning of the first sentence. The fixed starting column of the
>>> sentences becomes variable and that makes it hard to skim through for
>>> those who don't want to read the function names.
>>
>> +1 for the same reasons. 
>>
>> This is especially true for paragraphs like those:
>>
>> C-c C-n (outline-next-visible-heading) Next heading.
>> C-c C-p (outline-previous-visible-heading) Previous heading.
>> C-c C-f (org-forward-same-level) Next heading same level.
>> C-c C-b (org-backward-same-level) Previous heading same level.
>> C-c C-u (outline-up-heading) Backward to higher level heading.
>> C-c C-j (org-goto) Jump to a different place without changing the current 
>> outline
>>         visibility. Shows the document structure in a temporary buffer, 
>> where you can
>>         use the following keys to find your destination:
>>
>>
>>> What about having them in the same line as the keybinding but aligned to
>>> the right?
>>> 
>>> `C-c ['                                         org-agenda-file-to-front
>>>      Add current file to the list of agenda files.  The file is added to
>>>      the front of the list.  If it was already in the list, it is moved
>>>      to the front.  With prefix arg, file is added/moved to the end.
>>> 
>>> It would make the manual longer, but at least it looks clean.
>>> It is easy to neglect the function names if one wants, and just as easy
>>> to skim through them.
>>
>> +1 for the same reasons.  
>> But Andreas Röhlers original variant is IMHO even better:
>>
>>>| [ ... ]
>>>| `C-c [', org-agenda-file-to-front
>>>|     Add current file to the list of agenda files.  The file is added to
>>>|     the front of the list.  If it was already in the list, it is moved
>>>|     to the front.  With prefix Argument, file is added/moved to the end.
>
> Yes, but let's lose the extra comma.
>
> `C-c [' org-agenda-file-to-front
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Here the command name serves as a kind of a heading, it's easy
>> to search these locations while at the same time it's easy to
>> skim over the pages and not bother with the command names.
>>
>>
>>
>> My preference:
>>
>> 1. as in Andreas Röhlers original ASCII rendering 
>> 2. as in Andreas Burtzlaffs ASCII rendering
>> 3. not at all
>> 4. as in the test manual
>>
>>
>>
>> Just me 2¢.  Either way, org-mode is great.  Gregor
>>
>>
>> P.S.: Some of the command names don't help that much:
>>
>> C-c C-c (org-ctrl-c-ctrl-c) If there is a checkbox (see Section 5.6 
>> [Checkboxes],
>>         page 46) in the item line, toggle the state of the checkbox. If not, 
>> this command
>>         makes sure that all the items on this list level use the same 
>> bullet. Furthermore,
>>         if this is an ordered list, make sure the numbering is OK.
>> C-c -   (org-ctrl-c-minus) Cycle the entire list level through the different 
>> item-
>>         ize/enumerate bullets (`-', `+', `*', `1.', `1)'). With a numeric 
>> prefix argument
>>         N, select the Nth bullet from this list. If there is an active 
>> region when calling
>>         this, all lines will be converted to list items. If the first line 
>> already was a list
>>         item, any item markers will be removed from the list. Finally, even 
>> without an
>>         active region, a normal line will be converted into a list item.
>> C-c *   (org-ctrl-c-star) Turn a plain list item into a headline (so that it 
>> becomes
>>         a subheading at its location). See Section 2.5 [Structure editing], 
>> page 7, for a
>>         detailed explanation.
>>
>> But even this gives a clue in how it all works.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode