From: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Cc: Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks"
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:30:30 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k47kkfwp.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8762j4evjl.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:49:18 +0100")
Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:
> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The only problem with a single #+PROPERTY: line is that this line could
>> become unreadably long. By allowing such an entry to span multiple
>> lines it becomes feasible to chain together many variables into a single
>> property. Another approach which is easily implementable would be to
>> use syntax like the following...
>>
>>
>> #+PROPERTY: var foo=1,
>> #+PROPERTY+: bar=2,
>> #+PROPERTY+: baz=3,
>> #+PROPERTY+: qux=4
>
> Well, what about:
>
> #+property: :var foo=1
> #+property: :var bar=2
> #+property: :var baz=3
> #+property: :var qux=4
>
> Sure, we repeat ":var" more times, but at least, it's consistent with
> the rest of Org.
>
Unfortunately this won't work, the final value of the "var" property
will be "qux=4" rather than "foo=1, bar=2, baz=3, qux=4".
>
>> Although I originally switched from the above to the implemented
>> because I thought that using a block would be more consistent with
>> Org-mode syntax.
>
> No, as I said, no block has ever controlled Org internals. That's a job
> for keywords and property drawers.
>
I would say that the block is defining an keyword, but yes, I suppose
we've never had a multi-line keyword definition structure.
>
>> Also, the above is undesirable in its requires the PROPERTY+ lines to
>> care about their position in the Org-mode file, which isn't normally
>> the case.
>
> Yes, "#+property+:" would be atypical in that situation.
>
>> I think of #+FOO: lines as containers for anything that fits on
>> a single line, and as blocks as containers for anything that requires
>> a line break, e.g., #+HTML and #+BEGIN_HTML/#+END_HTML.
>
> That comparison with "#+html" and "#+begin_html" doesn't hold as most
> "#+keyword:" syntax don't have an equivalent block "#+begin_keyword",
Along these lines I would also like to allow TBLFM lines to be broken
over multiple lines, as I often find myself right-scrolling in a buffer
to find equations in large spreadsheets. I wonder if there would be a
general solution to allow *all* #keyword+ lines to have a block
equivalent.
>
> and the other way. Look again at every block type in Org, and see if
> there's any equivalent use of the "#+begin_property" you're
> introducing. I don't think so.
>
agreed
>
> Moreover, some keywords can be repeated on multiple lines. Think about
> "#+text:" before first headline, or "#+header:" before a src block. So,
> clearly, "#+keyword:" isn't just about things that must fit on a single
> line.
>
I don't know how #+text: works, but with #+header: the order of the
blocks is not important, i.e.,
#+headers: :var a=1
#+headers: :cache a=2
is equal to
#+headers: :cache a=2
#+headers: :var a=1
but the same is not true for
#+PROPERTY: var foo=1,
#+PROPERTY+: bar=2
and
#+PROPERTY+: bar=2
#+PROPERTY: var foo=1,
>
> Also, you don't really need a line break here, since you will eventually
> parse the values line by line anyway, and not as a block or a paragraph.
>
> You want to add syntactic sugar. There's nothing wrong with it though,
> but not everyone appreciate aspartame ;)
>
Yes, if you dig way back into this thread you'll see the motivation,
basically there are times when a user will want to specify *many*
variables in a single property specification. If there is a more
natural syntax I am very open to suggestions.
>
>> I didn't realize that there was an extra semantics of blocks as
>> formatting, and I'm not sure if such an association is desirable or
>> intentional.
>
> It is desirable to have a logic behind syntax, and to always refer to
> it. Thus, is is desirable to separate syntax used for contents from
> syntax used for Org control. It's very different from "things on
> a single line vs things on multiple lines".
>
Sure, but to play devils (or my own) advocate, I would say that
simplicity is important and "blocks for multi-line content" is a simpler
rule than "blocks for formatting of multi-line content, and for naming
multi-line data", the second being the case with code and example
blocks.
My goal here is to find the most natural solution which conforms to
Org-modes design as well as possible, I just don't know what that would
be...
Cheers -- Eric
>
>
> Regards,
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-31 21:30 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 [this message]
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
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=87k47kkfwp.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=schulte.eric@gmail.com \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--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).