Re: [DISCUSSION] Re-design of inlinetasks

[Russell Adams]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:06:51PM +0200, Alain.Cochard@unistra.fr wrote:
> Russell Adams writes on Wed 30 Aug 2023 14:36:
>  > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:49:26PM +0200, Alain.Cochard@unistra.fr wrote:
>  > > Russell Adams writes on Tue 29 Aug 2023 15:00:
>  > >  > On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Russell Adams wrote:
>  > >  > > Why not just put the TODO heading in a code block with type org?
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Then you get all the toys, ignored by the main file.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > If inline tasks are supposed to be Org enabled headings, but
>  > >  > NOT treated like headings in the current file, why not put
>  > >  > them in a src block?
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Doesn't this allow the same functionality without any new syntax
>  > >  > elements, or silly long *'s?
>  > >
>  > > Are regular Org tags allowed in this scenario?  If not, I'd be
>  > > miserable.
>  >
>  > It's a source block of type Org. That means *everything* that works in
>  > Org works inside that block. You might open it with C-c C-' to open it
>  > in an indirect buffer to enable everything.
>
> Sorry, that's not enough for me to understand.  What would be the
> equivalent of:
>
>    * head :foo:
>    *************** inlt :bar:
>    *************** END
>
> where the 'bar' tag could be used in exactly the same way as the 'foo'
> tag.

Please give some examples of "bar used in exactly the same way as
foo".

Off the top of my head, I can only think that some agenda views and
collapsing to sparse tree may not recognize :bar: because it's inside
a source block.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com
                                    https://www.adamsinfoserv.com/