Re: Re: extensible syntax

From: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
To: Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Re: extensible syntax
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:08:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <31B18B71-ECD7-43DF-B2BF-A92E79D1E908@uva.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20524da70901050819k7a5a89c6g745e9e1459293438@mail.gmail.com>

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