From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Fwd: comment lines inside org tables Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 18:29:16 +0200 Message-ID: <877f9moj37.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <6cd445a96b6d4cd88b912298ee4f4df1@DB5PR01MB1895.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <87wphpimua.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <02ef963d-cb72-4e3c-75a4-c4759e02b07a@mpic.de> <87fuoaonai.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33584) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brp4K-0003nB-GH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:29:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brp4I-00057V-9i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:29:19 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:50730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brp4I-00056y-3A for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:29:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Rolf Sander's message of "Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:32:56 +0200") 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" To: "Rolf Sander (MPI)" Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Hello, "Rolf Sander (MPI)" writes: > I'm sorry to say this but this email list has been the most > disappointing experience for me. I asked a simple question and even > provided the code for a possible solution. The answers I received > included phrases like "can of worms", "little benefit" and "barely > scratching the surface of the problem". I think that blaming the whole list is uncalled for. You got helpful answers from other persons than me, yet you only quote parts of my answers. > And now you even wrote: [...] >> I already answered to that question, but you discarded my answer. > > This is not true! You did not answer my question! Without testing, you > just _speculated_ that you expect problems with formulas and export. What makes you think I speculated anything? I tried to show you the weak spots of your model. > So I tested it myself. In my tests I did _not_ experience any problems > with formulas and export. Why do you claim that I discarded your > answer? Exhibiting one example confirming a theory doesn't validate it. Anyway, you can do the following with your patch: - Move point to your "comment row" - M-: (org-element-property :type (org-element-at-point)) If you get `rule', by all means, Org sees your row as a standard table rule. This is not transparent; this is /not/ a comment. You just created a degenerate syntax for table rules. Note that this may be what you really want, but this is not equivalent to the initial example you gave: |--------+-------+--------| | animal | size | number | |--------+-------+--------| | gnus | big | 3 | # don't forget to add elephants here: | gnats | small | 1000 | |--------+-------+--------| If such thing existed, the "gnus" and "gnats" rows wouldn't be separated by a rule, e.g., in export, because Org removes such lines prior to starting the export process. Another example is the following: |--------+-------+--------| | animal | size | number | |-/ whatever | gnus | big | 3 | | gnats | small | 1000 | |--------+-------+--------| In this case, you are creating a table header, so this is not transparent either. I could also add an example where an additional rule has an impact on formulas (@I..@II could have a different meaning depending on the presence or not of another rule). All in all, I think your problem is ill-defined. You wanted comment rows, but you didn't specify how it should behave in various situations involving tables. I stand on my ground : generic comment rows are difficult to implement and "a can of worms". Allowing text within a table rule is easier to achieve, as you proved, but it feels very hackish and limited in use. What if I want to introduce comments without creating a visible rule in the table? Do I need yet another syntax? > I still think orgmode is great code and I would have loved to > participate. However, given the way that you treat me here, I don't treat you in any way. I just suggested your idea was wrong. I understand this can be frustrating. I would be frustrated too. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou