From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Samuel Wales" Subject: Re: org-plot questions Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20524da70810221814i5e04fde7w80d21177fbb0fb5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <407c66ac0810220727qd861245p47bbece859899da9@mail.gmail.com> <874p34r6bm.fsf@gmail.com> <407c66ac0810221039m6a8015b9x1d2b76c8960e06d2@mail.gmail.com> <8763nkl08a.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsomJ-00013n-9Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:14:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsomH-00013b-0m for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:14:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59621 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsomG-00013T-T9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:14:16 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:5635) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KsomG-0001l5-Go for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:14:16 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so46151nfi.26 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:14:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8763nkl08a.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Schulte Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:43, Eric Schulte wrote: > I agree this isn't obvious, if you have a suggestion for improving the > syntax please let me know. I haven't looked into this matter, so this comment might not be relevant, but I do have a suggestion that I had earlier written for the *general* problem of choosing a syntax for new functionality when you don't have obvious models to follow. Some of the desiderata for a syntax include: consistent, easy to parse, hard to corrupt, simple to quote, simple to escape (especially with things like regexps that are already complicated), supports being confident that exporting will not exhibit unexpected behavior, easier for the user to remember without reference materials, flexible, extensible, supports macros, nestable, pretty-printable, a published reference standard, and print-readable (serializing). If your syntax has those, then you're doing well. If you don't have a model to follow (such as org or gnuplot), then Lisp (el because this is el or cl because it's a standard that is similar to el and meticulously speced) has usually had a lot of thought put into its syntax. You might get a joke or two, but we know better. :) Again, perhaps not relevant, but maybe food for thought for future questions about syntax.