From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [POLL] Syntax change: make \[...\] non-inline (+1)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:22:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKrPhPO9=3k4U2GCTgRe=dxW7=sCH_1zzmEHrNfDnPorGrcCJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47275)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XD86k-0008P2-Ia
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:22:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XD86j-0004rh-BV
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:22:34 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]:48497)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XD86j-0004rL-3e
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:22:33 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gl10so2919556lab.21
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 01:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: rasmus@gmx.us, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

> I didn't read the other thread is details, but it seems the most
> sensible thing to do is alter the org fill function(s).  These seems
> to rely on org-element, though, and I'm guessing that is why a syntax
> change is necessary, yes?

I would be perfectly happy with this behavior. Can't comment on
implementation aspects.

Regards,
Federico