Closed daphniz closed 4 years ago
Thanks, please test.
Thank you! But what do you think about allowing top-level cards? These files will tend to have only one top-level tree, which seems wrong.
Also, is using a tag really the best way to mark the presence of
cards? This tag will be inherited, but it seems inappropriate
that a single card should have the tag cards
.
How about an alternative file property?
#+PROPERTY: pamparam t
Thanks, please test.
I don't seem to have the function org--property-global-or-keyword-value
.
Thanks, please test again.
Thanks. But I don't have org-keyword-properties
either.
(defun pamapram--cards-at-level-one-p ()
(org--property-global-value "pamparam" t))
seems to work.
Which version of Org are you using? I have 9.3.1, which does not have org--property-global-value
.
Oh. I'm using 9.3.6. Org plus contrib.
OK. It seems Org changed the API from org-file-properties
to org-keyword-properties
. It should work now for both versions.
If I am not mistaken, all :cards: trees in the master file must be first-level. Is there any good reason for this? If I used more than one, and used the file for non-pamparam things as well, I would prefer to gather all :cards: trees under a pamparam tree (level 1 or higher). I would also rather not have to tag each individual tree.
I think in the example you used in your video you had a single top-level tree, and you didn't use the file for anything else. So, in this case, it would seem better to me to have top-level card trees, and use some file-level property instead of a tag to indicate that this is indeed a pamparam file.
I would suggest using a file or tree property
pamdepth
to indicate how many subtrees of the current file or tree should count as cards (now the hardcoded depth is 2, right?). This would requirepamdepth
to be non-inheritable; I don't know whether that's possible.I may of course have overlooked some complications that caused you to decide on the format you did.