A general idea, which might or might not be useful. There are occasionally questions about syntax, like this: Also, I'm afraid definition matching regexp won't play nicely with text indentation, ... -- Paul Or this: What would be safer? -- Carsten I like the footnote implementation, so this is for future features, not necessarily footnotes. One issue when implementing new syntax (or changing existing syntax or cleaning up code) is parsing risk, which I will define as the risk that the syntax and the regexp or matching code: 1) conflicts with user text 2) conflicts with existing features 3) will be hard to maintain 4) constrains future features by making them conflict syntactically 5) makes you run out of syntax to use in the future 6) will require complicated regexps 7) doesn't readily handle stuff you might want in the future, like being combined with another feature 8) will be hard to quote, escape, comment, *boldify*, etc. 9) doesn't handle nestability, print-readability, pretty-printability, syntax coloring, etc. 10) will be inefficient when called in a loop 11) isn't factored out 12) etc. For example, one of the many reasons for using org-IDs (:)) in the conversation manager (as proposed) is that there are already functions to parse org-IDs, so a new syntax is not necessary and therefore parsing risk is minimized. In case parsing risk is a concern when adding a new feature to org, here is one idea: have a generic syntax that is extensible with keywords. The idea is to have a bracketing syntax with a reserved keyword as the first element that says what you are doing. To use footnotes as an example (this is not a suggestion to change footnote syntax, just an example that can be used for future syntax): You might use something like "here is some text to be footnoted $[fn apple]" to specify the footnote link, and "$[fn-target apples are delicious]" to specify the target. The general point I want to make is that once such a syntax is decided on, many future features are possible without introducing parsing risk. For example, you can implement a new feature as "$[my-new-feature ...]". Then there is no parsing risk, even though you have just added a new feature. For modifications of features, you can use keywords: "$[my-new-feature ... :myparameter ...]". These are easily parsed by standard functions for parsing lists. You can develop ways to boldify, quote, nest, prettily print, etc. this syntax, and those ways will work well with all future features that use it. Of course, the dollar sign and brackets are not the only possibility; it could be percent sign and parentheses, for example. You will not be starting from scratch. Lisp has already worked out many of these issues. I will leave it to those who write massive amounts of org code to decide whether an extensible syntax might be useful to reduce parsing risk for future features. But I thought that I would propose the idea in case it is of interest. -- For personal gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists are knowingly causing further suffering and death by grossly corrupting science. Do you care about the world? http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm
Hello again :), Let me provide examples -- using footnotes. All footnote references and definitions would be inside $[...]. (As mentioned in my previous post.) There was a concern about keeping code executable. You can use a parameter to specify whether you want the footnote to: - disappear in the code (thus keeping the code executable without having to use comments, so that the reference is at the correct position in the line, yet keeping the link pointing to the correct position) - or show up as a numbered or labeled reference The reference can look like: (defun my-example-defun $[fn "defun name" :invisible t] () (interactive "P") ;$[fn "interactive"] ... The second reference is visible, but the first is not. Note that this allows references with spaces (or anything else). No need to worry about syntax conflicts within org. There was also a concern about conflicting with code syntax. Your decision as a user is whether you want $[...] to be interpreted as code or footnote. You could want either one. To make it be interpreted as code, you simply prefix the $ with a \. That takes away org's special handling of the syntax. org's footnote code merely checks for a \ in front of the $ and then it knows not to do anything except remove the \. In fact, the footnote code doesn't even have to do that. The org extensible syntax code (the code for $[...]) is what does it. The footnote code simply calls the extensible syntax code. To make it be a footnote, you don't do anything. This will work for all code examples you can dream up. There is no need to worry about which languages have $[...] in them. The advantage is that for future features, the same solutions will work. And since the syntax is extensible, it will work for completely new features. Finally, the escaping scheme should be familiar to users, as it is a common method in programming languages. Is this idea possibly of interest? -- For personal gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists are knowingly causing further suffering and death by grossly corrupting science. Do you care about the world? http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm
On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Samuel Wales wrote: > Hello again :), > > Let me provide examples -- using footnotes. > > All footnote references and definitions would be inside > $[...]. (As mentioned in my previous post.) > > There was a concern about keeping code executable. You can > use a parameter to specify whether you want the footnote to: > > - disappear in the code (thus keeping the code executable > without having to use comments, so that the reference is > at the correct position in the line, yet keeping the > link pointing to the correct position) > - or show up as a numbered or labeled reference > > The reference can look like: > > (defun my-example-defun $[fn "defun name" :invisible t] () > (interactive "P") ;$[fn "interactive"] > ... > > The second reference is visible, but the first is not. Note > that this allows references with spaces (or anything else). > No need to worry about syntax conflicts within org. > > There was also a concern about conflicting with code syntax. > Your decision as a user is whether you want $[...] to be > interpreted as code or footnote. You could want either one. > > To make it be interpreted as code, you simply prefix the $ > with a \. That takes away org's special handling of the > syntax. org's footnote code merely checks for a \ in front > of the $ and then it knows not to do anything except remove > the \. > > In fact, the footnote code doesn't even have to do that. > The org extensible syntax code (the code for $[...]) is what > does it. The footnote code simply calls the extensible > syntax code. > > To make it be a footnote, you don't do anything. > > This will work for all code examples you can dream up. > There is no need to worry about which languages have $[...] > in them. > > The advantage is that for future features, the same > solutions will work. And since the syntax is extensible, it > will work for completely new features. > > Finally, the escaping scheme should be familiar to users, as > it is a common method in programming languages. > > Is this idea possibly of interest? Hi Samuel, this is interesting and I will keep it in mind for the next syntax change we will need. Thanks. - Carsten > > > -- > For personal gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists are knowingly > causing further suffering and death by grossly corrupting science. Do > you care about the world? > http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode