On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sebastien Vauban <
wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Schulte wrote:
> >> #+BABEL: :var SVNVERSION=(vc-working-revision (buffer-file-name))
> >> #+BABEL: :var SVNSTATE=( symbol-name (vc-state (or (buffer-file-name)
> org-current-export-file)))
> >> #+BABEL: :var SVNSTATENUM=(if (eq (vc-state (or (buffer-file-name)
> org-current-export-file)) 'up-to-date) 0 13)
> >>
> >> which would look horrible in one line and a nightmare to edit.
> >
> > I can think of three options for how to handle this situation.
> >
> > 1. If it turns out to be possible/desirable my preferred solution here
> >    would be to add general property support for appending values to
> >    properties when properties are over specified rather than simply
> >    replacing the value.  Perhaps this could be done with a variable like
> >    org-accumulating-properties which could hold a list of those
> >    properties which should accumulate values rather than overwriting
> >    them.
> >
> > 2. Adding a "#+PROPERTY:" line authoring helper similar to the table
> >    formula helper making it more natural to edit such long property
> >    lines.
> >
> > 3. It may be possible to add syntax for extending #+PROPERTY:
> >    specifications across multiple lines, something like
> >
> >    #+PROPERTY: SVNVERSION=(vc-working-revision (buffer-file-name)),
> >    #+PROPERTY+: SVNSTATE=( symbol-name (vc-state (or (buffer-file-name)
> org-current-export-file))),
> >    #+PROPERTY+: SVNSTATENUM=(if (eq (vc-state (or (buffer-file-name)
> org-current-export-file)) 'up-to-date) 0 13),
> >
> >    FWIW I would like to have a similar extender for #+TBLFM: lines.
> >    Actually this choice may be my preferred solution.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think that makes sense.
>
> While thinking about all of this, and working in real-life documents, I
> just
> came back to a suggestion which I made some time ago. It goes about this
> enhancement:
>
>    Would it be possible to specify "buffer-wide language specific" header
>    arguments?
>
> That is, be able to say:
>
>    "In this document, I want to:
>    - tangle all my .sql chunks, but no other;
>    - eval all the elisp chunks with query, but no other."
>
> Something we could write quite easily along the lines:
>
>    #+PROPERTY:               tangle no
>    #+PROPERTY:               eval never
>    #+PROPERTY[SQL]:          tangle yes
>    #+PROPERTY[EMACS-LISP]:   eval query
>
>    (the syntax used here is just a draft sample!)
>
> What do you think about this feature? If you feel it can be something
> interesting to have, this is surely to incorporate in the current syntax
> debate. If not... never mind.
>

I am not Eric, but I think that would be a good idea. Bu there needs to be a
way of specifying more then one property, either by #+PROPERTY+: or by any
other way -I acually luike the #+PROPERTY+: .
Thinking about it, it should be possible without the +:

#+PROPERTY[R]: tangle no
#+PROPERTY[R]: export both

The more I see it, the more I like it - also the []

Cheers,

Rainer


> Best regards,
>  Seb
>
> --
> Sebastien Vauban
>
>
>


-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug