From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks" Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:23:28 -0600 Message-ID: <87sjm5ez0f.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87vcr5c76e.fsf@gmail.com> <87vcr5j5a5.fsf@gmail.com> <4EAF118C.8050806@christianmoe.com> <87hb2mo7ek.fsf@altern.org> <87obwuh19t.fsf@gmail.com> <87hb2mdmi9.fsf@gnu.org> <87obwtgip9.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57233) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RM3p0-0005qs-Fj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:23:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RM3ox-00066A-O4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:23:34 -0400 Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:35101) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RM3ox-000643-Hc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:23:31 -0400 Received: by vcbfl17 with SMTP id fl17so1804863vcb.0 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87obwtgip9.fsf@gmail.com> (Eric Schulte's message of "Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:32:50 -0600") 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: Bastien Cc: Org Mode List , Nicolas Goaziou , mail@christianmoe.com 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. Best -- Eric Eric Schulte 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/