From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [ANN] BREAKING CHANGE -- removing #+BABEL file-wide property lines Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:04:11 +0200 Message-ID: <808vofwf1w.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87pqhrih3s.fsf@gmail.com> <30891.1319141196@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <87fwinifqu.fsf@gmail.com> <32184.1319143892@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Nick and Eric, Nick Dokos wrote: > Eric Schulte wrote: >> Nick Dokos writes: >> > Eric Schulte wrote: >> > >> >> I have just pushed up a change to the Org-mode git repository which >> >> removes support for #+BABEL lines. Please use the more general >> >> #+PROPERTIES lines instead. >> > >> > Coming late to the dance - sorry. I think that's very confusing. >> > "Property" is an overloaded term in org: we now have the :PROPERTIES: >> > drawer, the #+PROPERTY line and the #+PROPERTIES line (singular and >> > plural forms are already pretty bad). If you'd have asked me, I would have chosen #+BABEL instead of #+PROPERTIES, as it made it clear "who" owned those directives, to whom they were targeted. >> Do the #+PROPERTY and #+PROPERTIES lines have different semantics? > > I think so: see section 7.1 for a use of the former. AFAICT, the latter > only applies to code block header arguments. > >> > Also, there is the general concept of properties (the stuff that the >> > property API applies to). >> > >> > Unless there is an underlying unity of which I'm unaware, I'd strongly >> > suggest another term - perhaps CODE_BLOCK_HEADER_ARGUMENTS (plus >> > an easy-template for easy insertion). >> >> Code blocks already piggy-back off of subtree properties pulling their >> header arguments out of the properties specified on the subtree level. >> Given that header arguments and properties are already thus interleaved >> I believe that properties should be used on the file-wide level as well, >> rather than introducing another synonymous keyword which adds no new >> functionality. >> >> Does that make sense? However, I've been convinced by Eric's arguments. The fact you already can mix BABEL properties in subtree PROPERTIES... > Yes, but the #+PROPERTIES line has nothing to do with org properties. It > *only* affects code blocks, no? But, I guess you're right, Nick: not the other way around. So, I don't know anymore what to think... I do well agree that "properties" has not a clear-cut meaning anymore; this is a very general word. Now, if I had to choose between #+PROPERTY and #+PROPERTIES, I would favor the last one, as it is some place where you can stuff many properties -- and to reflect what's already use for the export options: there you put the "options" under the OPTIONS "meta-keyword". In the plural form. Just my 2 cents. Whatever your choice, I'll follow it. And I always prefer to reduce the number of synonyms, and have just one official form[1]. Best regards, Seb Footnotes: [1] I have the same "annoying" feelings with #+SOURCE, #+SRCNAME, #+FUNCTION, #+CALL, #+LOB, and SBE, some of which are interchangeable; some not. I'd prefer deprecating an old form when a better one is found. -- Sebastien Vauban