From: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
To: Darlan Cavalcante Moreira <darcamo@gmail.com>
Cc: mail@christianmoe.com, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>,
Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Subject: Re: About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks"
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:25:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877h3felm2.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4eb42564.059dec0a.5ffc.7ff5@mx.google.com> (Darlan Cavalcante Moreira's message of "Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:48:09 -0300")
Darlan Cavalcante Moreira <darcamo@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
>
Oh yes, I didn't realize that when I first posted this suggestion but it
is very similar to your suggested "inherit" keyword,
>
> 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".`
>
Agreed, it was the limitation of possible values which I didn't like
about your "inherit" suggestion, but this approach switches the
limitation to the property name rather than the property value which is
somehow more appealing.
Cheers -- Eric
>
> --
> Darlan
>
> At Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:02:43 +0100, Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> 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 <schulte.eric@gmail.com> 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
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-04 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-31 19:06 About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks" Nicolas Goaziou
2011-10-31 20:05 ` Eric Schulte
2011-10-31 20:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-10-31 21:30 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-01 8:24 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-11-01 8:36 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-11-01 14:36 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-01 15:39 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-11-01 16:58 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-01 17:48 ` Christian Moe
2011-11-01 19:02 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-01 19:45 ` Christian Moe
2011-11-01 20:22 ` Eric Schulte
2011-10-31 21:33 ` Christian Moe
2011-10-31 21:22 ` Christian Moe
2011-10-31 21:36 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-01 7:33 ` Christian Moe
2011-11-02 15:35 ` Bastien
2011-11-02 17:39 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-11-03 1:26 ` Bastien
2011-11-03 8:08 ` Christian Moe
2011-11-03 15:10 ` Nick Dokos
2011-11-03 18:32 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-03 20:01 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2011-11-03 20:18 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-03 20:23 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-04 8:02 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-04 17:48 ` Darlan Cavalcante Moreira
2011-11-04 19:25 ` Eric Schulte [this message]
2011-11-07 22:09 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-08 8:42 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-08 9:31 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-11-08 9:41 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-08 9:58 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-11-08 10:06 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-08 14:42 ` Darlan Cavalcante Moreira
2011-11-08 15:06 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-11-08 16:03 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-08 22:53 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-09 8:25 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-09 16:12 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-09 17:18 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-09 22:31 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-11-15 12:33 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-15 16:00 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-15 16:37 ` Torsten Wagner
2011-11-15 16:56 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-15 17:13 ` Thomas S. Dye
2011-11-15 18:22 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-15 17:24 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-08 9:41 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-11-08 9:44 ` Rainer M Krug
2011-11-08 16:01 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-02 21:05 ` Samuel Wales
2011-11-02 21:21 ` Samuel Wales
2011-11-03 1:42 ` Bastien
2011-11-03 8:19 ` Christian Moe
2011-11-03 18:34 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-03 18:59 ` Eric Schulte
2011-11-09 17:40 ` Samuel Wales
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877h3felm2.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=schulte.eric@gmail.com \
--cc=bzg@altern.org \
--cc=darcamo@gmail.com \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=mail@christianmoe.com \
--cc=n.goaziou@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).