From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Davison Subject: Re: Org now fontifies code blocks Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:17:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87r5h4avv4.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> References: <8739uvw0hg.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <87vd7j1nck.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <87lj7kqh3f.fsf_-_@stats.ox.ac.uk> <874oe6pwew.wl%ucecesf@ucl.ac.uk> <87mxrug1x9.fsf@gnu.org> <87sk1lmzyo.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <878w3dxzo0.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <877hiwb3kw.fsf@gnu.org> <87occ8rsly.fsf@mundaneum.com> <4C87D922.40109@ccbr.umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36143 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OtQGI-0003Lv-TI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:24:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtQ8s-0001mu-De for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:17:11 -0400 Received: from markov.stats.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.210.1]:34027) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OtQ8s-0001mb-1B for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:17:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C87D922.40109@ccbr.umn.edu> (Erik Iverson's message of "Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:42:42 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Erik Iverson Cc: =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=A9bastien?= Vauban , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Erik Iverson writes: > S=C3=A9bastien Vauban wrote: >> Hi Bastien and Dan, >> >> Bastien wrote: >>> Dan Davison writes: >>> >>>> (We badly need a customize group for these org-src but non-babel >>>> variables[1]. That suggests to me subsuming the "Babel" group (Should = be >>>> "Org Babel" for consistency?) within a new group, perhaps "Org Code" or >>>> "Org Src" or "Org Source Code" ? Views? >>> I find "Org Code" and "Org Source Code" rather ambiguous. Yes, you're right! >>> "Org Src" is >>> better but still a bit too general IMHO. >>> >>> "Org Src Block"? I do sometimes find myself wondering whether "src" is a little cryptic for user-level documentation: an alternative would be "code" as in "code blocks". But src is hard-wired into "begin_src", and it is familiar to many programmers, and it is already traditional in Org-mode, so perhaps it is fine. >> The terminology of such code blocks in Noweb was "scraps". We often see >> "snippets" as well, but (not being English-native), that can be more for= pure >> text (not specifically code). >> >> Then, it could be "Org Scraps" or similar variants. > > Or "chunk", which I subjectively find the most phonetically pleasing. I would like there to be some uniformity in this, across documentation, docstrings and function and variable names. I have been guilty of using "code blocks" in docstrings and commit logs. So if "src block" is /the/ Org-mode way of referring to these things, then let's stick to it! For the purposes of customize, we don't have to abbreviate, so we could also have=20 "Org Source Code Blocks" but as Bastien sugests, "Org Src Blocks" would be a natural Org-mode term. Dan > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode