From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Re: Release 7.02 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:48:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4DCCE1BD-EA36-4EFC-8DFC-3F44186DA15F@gmail.com> References: <912EC325-B17E-487B-BA7F-47573F8D4D69@gmail.com> <80tyk5pfih.fsf@mundaneum.com> <41829F98-B0DD-4FDB-981D-36DBECD53862@gmail.com> <80eib9p6wp.fsf@mundaneum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60863 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PBnRo-00073n-IJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:48:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PBnRn-00043f-5B for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:48:40 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:42327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PBnRn-00043Y-0X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:48:39 -0400 Received: by eydd26 with SMTP id d26so1708994eyd.0 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <80eib9p6wp.fsf@mundaneum.com> 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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Vauban?= Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:36 PM, S=E9bastien Vauban wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > Carsten Dominik wrote: >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:30 AM, S=E9bastien Vauban wrote: >>> Carsten Dominik wrote: >>>> Due to changes made to lists, it is no longer possible to have a =20= >>>> sublist, >>>> some text and then another sublist while still in the same top- =20 >>>> level list >>>> item, like in the following situation: >>>> >>>> - Some list >>>> + A first sublist >>>> + of two elements >>>> >>>> A text belonging to the top-level list >>>> >>>> + Then another sublist >>>> + and a second element in it >>>> - End of main list >>> >>> Basically, it means that this entry for this entry (about Org =20 >>> Babel) from >>> an old file of mine (update this morning) does not publish anymore =20= >>> the same >>> way: >>> >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >>> * How to view the results >>> >>> - =3DC-c C-v C-v=3D (or =3DC-c C-v v=3D) -- View the expanded body = of a =20 >>> code block. >>> >>> - =3DC-c C-v C-z=3D -- Switch to the *session* of the current code =20= >>> block (first, >>> you need to add =3D:session=3D to it). >>> >>> Use =3DC-u C-c C-v C-z=3D to bring up the session with the input =20 >>> variable >>> pre-loaded. >>> >>> =3DC-c C-v z=3D (=3Dorg-babel-switch-to-session-with-code=3D) is a = variant =20 >>> of =3DC-c >>> C-v C-z=3D (=3Dorg-babel-switch-to-session=3D): instead of switching = to =20 >>> the >>> session buffer, it splits the window between: >>> >>> + the session buffer, and >>> + a language major-mode edit buffer for the code block in question. >>> >>> This can be convenient for using language major mode for =20 >>> interacting with >>> the session buffer. >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >>> >>> The last sentence is *not* considered part of the second element =20 >>> of the >>> first list. >>> >>> Although I've seen similar constructs in many, many documents, =20 >>> does anyone >>> know enough rules of style to tell me if this is a wrong way to =20 >>> write >>> things down? Or, does some possibility still exist to support this >>> seamlessly? >> >> It is not that this would be bad style. In fact I do miss this kind =20= >> of >> structure as well, and accepting loosing it was the biggest =20 >> argument against >> Nicolas' change. > > Does that mean that we must admit this will stay like that forever, =20= > or will > one try to look and see if it's possible to make that extension? I am not against it if it can be done in a clean way that is in =20 keeping with the structure and philosophy Nicolas has implemented. I think this will mean that we would not use just indentation to =20 define this, but some explicit piece of syntax. Patches and discussions about this will always be welcome, no need to =20= close any door for good. > > >> However, the trade was for much greater stability and consistency =20 >> of plain >> lists, Nicolas has done some great work here. Another issue was =20 >> that the >> LaTeX exporter never had any support for these structures, so that =20= >> was >> inconsistent for a long time. > > I know that Bastien told he would fix it when he would have time. =20 > So, that did > not seem to be an impossible wish. Trust me, it is not something I can do in a day or two, or I would =20 have done it a long time ago. I don't know why Bastien has never done =20= it. bastien, did you ever try? - Carsten