From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Sloppy `org-element-context'? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:26:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87ppl6r7wf.fsf@gmail.com> References: <874n2jsls9.fsf@gmail.com> <87r45njpgp.fsf@pank.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40583) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTT34-0006IG-F4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:26:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTT2y-0001jj-H5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:26:02 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]:44745) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTT2y-0001jR-AD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:25:56 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r20so516357wiv.3 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 02:25:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87r45njpgp.fsf@pank.eu> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:34:14 +0100") 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: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Rasmus writes: > Would it make sense to make it optional? I thought about it. But adding an optional argument to determine if `org-element-context' should be strict or sloppy doesn't help in practice, since one will probably often wonder if he needs to switch to sloppy mode or not. Also, `org-element-context' is not needed for parsing a buffer (with `org-element-parse-buffer'). Thus, strict behaviour is not mandatory. > I haven't seen this discussion. I looked briefly at the suggested > patch; I don't understand why it would be necessary or desirable. But > I will not rule out that I have yet to consider the correct case! For example, one may write :PROPERTIES: :SOME_LINK: [[my-link:destination]] :END: and expect C-c C-o to open the link in the properties drawer. I can see the practical use, but not at the syntax level, which defines it as a plain string. Indeed, this can get worse: :PROPERTIES: :REMEMBER: <2014-03-28 Fri> :END: introduces a timestamp hidden to the user but not to the agenda. > As a hacker (not quite a developer!), I do at time desire more > flexibility with org-context to temporarily evaluating an element > under alternative assumptions of its properties. A recent example > evaluate $x^{z}$ as-if it isn't a latex-fragment. I think this would go too far. Considering $x^{z}$ as anything else than a latex fragment is not a good idea. What is the next step? Should the snippet $a =b \qquad c= d$ be seen as strike-through? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou