emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Sloppy `org-element-context'?
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:34:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r45njpgp.fsf@pank.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 874n2jsls9.fsf@gmail.com


Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> As you may know, `org-element-context' returns the object under point,
> according to Org Syntax. The questions are: should it be a little
> sloppy, for convenience? And, if it should, what degree of sloppiness is
> acceptable?

Would it make sense to make it optional?  For my personal hacks, I
much prefer to work with an element, if possible, and flexibility
could facility fast and easy hacks.  On the other hand in Org-core
clarity and strictness is (probably) preferable.  So something like

    (let (org-element-strict) (FUN (org-element-context) ...)).

> Note that, at the time being, the function is already somewhat sloppy,
> because it will return an object right before point. In the following
> example, "|" is point. Even though it is not on the bold object,
> evaluating (org-element-context) there will give:
>   "*bold*| text"  =>  (bold ...)

> Should we go further? A recent discussion about opening links in node
> properties suggests that some users expect to encounter Org syntax
> there. I believe this is not generally desirable.

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!

> Anyway, here we are. I think it is important to define clearly what
> belongs to the syntax (I think it is quite good at the moment), what can
> be allowed for the sake of convenience, and what line should never be
> crossed (I firmly believe, for example, that `org-element-context'
> should never return objects in a comment, an example block, or
> a fixed-width area).

As a user I have no problems with the syntax.

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.


This space is left intentionally blank

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-27 21:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-27 15:28 [RFC] Sloppy `org-element-context'? Nicolas Goaziou
2014-03-27 21:34 ` Rasmus [this message]
2014-03-28  9:26   ` Nicolas Goaziou
2014-04-19  8:47 ` Bastien
2014-04-19  9:15   ` Nicolas Richard
2014-04-19  9:30     ` Bastien
2014-04-23 20:35   ` Nicolas Goaziou
2014-04-29 21:20     ` Nicolas Goaziou
2014-05-06  9:25       ` Bastien
2014-05-26 15:50         ` Bastien

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:

  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=87r45njpgp.fsf@pank.eu \
    --to=rasmus@gmx.us \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \


* 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


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).