From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
To: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:24:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y5w0ckt7.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k47kkfwp.fsf@gmail.com> (Eric Schulte's message of "Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:30:30 -0600")
Hello,
Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Well, what about:
>>
>> #+property: :var foo=1
>> #+property: :var bar=2
>> #+property: :var baz=3
>> #+property: :var qux=4
> 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".
I know that it won't work, as "#+begin_property" didn't work before you
introduced it. The idea is to make that work instead (with or without
the colons in front of "var").
> I would say that the block is defining an keyword, but yes, I suppose
> we've never had a multi-line keyword definition structure.
I differentiate keywords and blocks from their usage. As such, blocks
are not defining a keyword. They're not even in the same league.
> 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.
The solution I implemented in my document on Org syntax is to create two
keyword's families: cumulative and dual.
Belonging to the first one means a keyword accumulates its values on
multiple calls instead of replacing them. That's how I parse
"#+headers:" or "#+attr_latex" lines, for example. The second one allows
the keyword to have a secondary, optional, value, in square brackets.
This is useful for keywords like "#+results:", which can include an hash
value like "#+results[hash-string]: keyword-value".
Typically, what is required here is to add "#+property:" to the
cumulative family. Thus,
#+property: var foo=1
#+property: var bar=2
is exactly the same as #+property: var foo=1 var bar=2.
Also, make sure var assignations accumulate too.
> 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,
Because, again, "#+property+:" isn't a great idea. Here, "#+headers:"
accumulates its values. Make the same for "#+property:" and we're all
set.
>> 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.
What? Blocks do not name anything. In the case of code and example
blocks, you specify Org how to format/understand the contents, like any
other block. You use "#+name:" to name them.
Again, the rule is simple: blocks are directly related to contents,
keywords aren't. Corollary is: no block with only options and no
contents.
> 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...
We share the same goal.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-01 8:25 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
2011-11-01 8:24 ` Nicolas Goaziou [this message]
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=87y5w0ckt7.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=n.goaziou@gmail.com \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=schulte.eric@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).