From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Goldman Subject: Re: Emacs-orgmode Digest, Vol 35, Issue 7 Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:13:50 -0600 Message-ID: <49610A6E.8060400@sift.info> References: 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 1LJYQI-0005LO-GI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJYQF-0005LB-Ow for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:14:05 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59201 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJYQF-0005L8-If for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:14:03 -0500 Received: from outbound-mail-304.bluehost.com ([67.222.53.250]:42642) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LJYQF-0006Vt-7W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:14:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Carsten> On Jan 4, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Steven E. Harris wrote: >> > Carsten Dominik writes: > >>> >> Code references use special labels embedded directly into the source >>> >> code. Such labels look like "((name))" and must be unique within a >>> >> document. >> > > How does the parser know that, say, "((def))" is not a valid > >> expression > in the surrounding Lisp forms? Is it important that it be >> separated by > space, or be the last token on the line? > > Trying to >> concoct a motivating example, consider a structure > represented > as >> nested lists: > > ,---- > | '(a > | ((b c) d) > | (((e) f)) ((def)) > | >> g) > `---- > > Without knowing what the enclosing `quote' form means, how >> do know > that > "((def))" is not part of it? Carsten> Hi Steven, Carsten> good question, and the answer is that is does not know, cannot Carsten> know, because this is a feature that is supposed to work for any Carsten> kind of example, an the parser cannot know all possible syntaxes Carsten> :-) Carsten> This idea is to make this work in a heuristic way, by using Carsten> something that is unlikely enough to occur in real code. Carsten> You are right that what I am using might be too dangerous for emacs Carsten> lisp or other lisp dialects, and it could also show up in other Carsten> languages like C. Carsten> What would be safer? Carsten> <> like the other Org-mode targets? That would make sense. Carsten> Does anyone know a language where this would be used in real life? Carsten> It would make it harder to write about Org-mode, though. Carsten> Or do we need another option, so that, if needed, we could switch Carsten> do a different syntax? Carsten> Comments are very welcome. Would it be possible to adopt an approach like that used in Latex verbatim mode, where one could introduce a new delimeter for use in the block in question (perhaps with default being << and >>)?