From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darlan Cavalcante Moreira Subject: Re: About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks" Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:48:09 -0300 Message-ID: <4eb42564.059dec0a.5ffc.7ff5@mx.google.com> References: <87vcr5c76e.fsf@gmail.com> <87vcr5j5a5.fsf@gmail.com> <4EAF118C.8050806@christianmoe.com> <87hb2mo7ek.fsf@altern.org> <87obwuh19t.fsf@gmail.com> <87hb2mdmi9.fsf@gnu.org> <87obwtgip9.fsf@gmail.com> <87sjm5ez0f.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMNsP-0003MN-AI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:48:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMNsN-0004lY-TR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:48:25 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:47205) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RMNsN-0004lS-NW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:48:23 -0400 Received: by ggnh4 with SMTP id h4so3147237ggn.0 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Rainer M Krug Cc: Bastien , Org Mode List , Nicolas Goaziou , mail@christianmoe.com I liked this suggestion. In a sense, it is similar to the "inherit" keyword I had suggested before, but now the "keyword" (the plus sign) is part of the variable name. But the reason I really liked it is because it is clear to understand. One can compare it to the "+=" operator some languages have. That is, we can understand `:var: bar=2` as var="bar=2" and `:var+: bar=2` as var+="bar=2".` -- Darlan At Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:02:43 +0100, Rainer M Krug wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Eric Schulte wrote: > > > One more idea that has occurred to me, it should give all of the > > functionality which we desire (i.e., the ability for a property value to > > span multiple lines and to be accumulated at the subtree level), and it > > should require *no* new syntax. The only problem is it puts a > > limitation on possible property names -- namely that they can not end > > with the + character. > > > > The proposal is, when a property name ends in +, the value is appended > > to the corresponding property, rather than replacing it, so > > > > #+PROPERTY: var foo=1 > > #+PROPERTY: var bar=2 > > > > results in '(("var" . "bar=2")) > > > > #+PROPERTY: var foo=1 > > #+PROPERTY: var+ , bar=2 > > > > results in '(("var" . "foo=1, bar=2")) > > > > This way subtree properties could be used as well, e.g., > > > > #+PROPERTY: var foo=1 > > > > * subtree > > :PROPERTIES: > > :var+: bar=2 > > :CUSTOM_ID: something > > :END: > > > > Just another thought. > > > > I like that suggestion - it is clear, easy to understand, gives other > advantages (you can "unset" variables in a subtree - which would be an > added bonus) and does not require any large changes in org files. > > This suggestion would get my vote. > > Cheers, > > Rainer > > > > > > Best -- Eric > > > > Eric Schulte writes: > > > > > I don't understand why the `org-accumulated-properties-alist' solution > > > seems like a hack, could someone elaborate. To me that still feels like > > > the most natural solution. > > > > > > more below... > > > > > >>>> 2) "Cumulative properties"? > > >>>> > > >>>> Here is a suggestion: use a syntaxe like > > >>>> > > >>>> #+var: foo 1 > > >>> > > >>> There is also "#+bind:", whose purpose is close enough. > > >> > > >> Indeed. Eric, would it be possible to use > > >> > > >> #+bind foo 1 > > >> > > >> instead of > > >> > > >> #+property var foo=1 > > >> > > > > > > No, this would not for subtree-level properties, i.e., in a property > > > block under a subtree there would be no way to tell if a property is a > > > #+var:. I think if this were an approach, a more elegant solution would > > > be for users to customize the `org-babel-default-header-args' variable > > > using Emacs' file-local-variable feature -- which is possible now and > > > may end up being the best solution. > > > > > >> > > >>>> 3) Wrapping/folding long #+xxx lines? > > >>>> > > >>>> This is an independant request -- see Robert McIntyre's recent > > >>>> question on the list. The problem is that fill-paragraph on > > >>>> long #+xxx lines breaks the line into comment lines, which is > > >>>> wrong. Filling like this: > > >>>> > > >>>> #+TBLFM: @3$1=@1$1+@2$1::@3$2=@1$2+@2$2::...::... > > >>>> : @3$2=@1$2+@2$2::... > > >>>> : @3$2=@1$2+@2$2::... > > >>> > > >>> #+tblfm: ... > > >>> #+tblfm: ... > > >>> #+tblfm: ... > > >> > > >> Not very elegant, but perhaps more efficient/consistent. > > >> > > > > > > I like this solution, especially as I have often struggled with long and > > > unreadable tblfm lines. The problem with using this for property lines > > > would be in the case of > > > > > > #+property: foo bar > > > #+property: baz qux > > > > > > whether the above should be parsed as > > > > > > '(("foo" . "bar") ("baz" . "qux")) > > > > > > or > > > > > > '(("foo" . "bar baz qux")) > > > > > >>>> But maybe generalizing the #+begin_xxx syntax for *all* #+xxx > > >>>> keywords. This would make the current > > >>>> org-internals-oriented/content-oriented difference between #+xxx > > >>>> and #+begin_xxx obsolete > > >>> > > >>> I suggest to avoid such a thing. Here are a few, more or less valid, > > >>> reasons: > > >>> > > >>> - That distinction is useful for the user (clear separation between > > >>> contents and Org control). > > >>> - It would penalize usage of special blocks. > > >>> - The need is localized to very few keywords: it isn't worth the > > added > > >>> complexity. > > >>> - It would be ugly: no more nice stacking of keywords, but a mix of > > >>> blocks and keywords, and blocks on top of blocks... Org syntax may > > >>> not be the prettiest ever, it doesn't deserve that. > > >>> - It would be a real pain to parse. > > >> > > >> Well, I agree with most of the reasons. Glad you stated them clearly. > > >> > > > > > > Yes, I agree some of the above are very motivating. > > > > > >> > > >>>> but this would spare us the cost of new syntax. > > >>> > > >>> On the contrary, creating a block for each keyword would mean a lot of > > >>> new syntax. > > >>> > > >>> We currently have 8 types of blocks (not counting dynamic blocks, whose > > >>> syntax is a bit different), all requiring to be parsed differently: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Center blocks, > > >>> 2. Comment blocks, > > >>> 3. Example blocks, > > >>> 4. Export blocks, > > >>> 5. Quote blocks, > > >>> 6. Special blocks, > > >>> 7. Src blocks, > > >>> 8. Verse blocks. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure what do you mean by "requiring to be parsed differently". > > >> Can you explain it? I understand they should be treated differently by > > >> the exporters, but I don't understand why they would need to be parsed > > >> differently. > > >> > > > > > > I also wouldn't think of this as new syntax, I don't see 8 rules for the > > > 8 types above but rather one rule along the lines of #+begin_SOMETHING > > > where the SOMETHING can be anything. > > > > > > Best -- Eric > > > > > >> > > >> My idea was to avoid parsing both #+html and #+begin_html. And that > > >> #+begin_xxx syntax is already available for folding, which is a feature > > >> we might want for #+text and keywords like that. > > >> > > >> I would suggest this rule: #+begin_ is always for _content_ > > >> while #+keyword is always for internals that are removed when > > >> exporting. #+text, #+html, #+LaTeX are a few exception I can > > >> think of. > > >> > > >> Best, > > > > -- > > Eric Schulte > > http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/ > > > > > > > -- > Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, > UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany) > > Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology > Stellenbosch University > South Africa > > Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44 > Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98 > Fax (F): +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44 > > Fax (D): +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44 > > email: Rainer@krugs.de > > Skype: RMkrug