From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: [ox-publish] handling of white space in arguments of macros, named arguments? Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:44:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <31F8FCDD-923C-402B-AD87-FEB6C8F84B12@nf.mpg.de> <87d2ukg66d.fsf@gmail.com> <87ehezxzng.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULGrc-0004KW-No for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:43:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULGrb-0005j8-MR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:43:48 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULGrb-0005ir-FN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:43:47 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ULGrq-0006IW-Rd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:44:02 +0100 Received: from p5b14dd97.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.20.221.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:44:02 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by p5b14dd97.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:44:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87ehezxzng.fsf@gmail.com> 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Am 28.03.2013 17:22, schrieb Nicolas Goaziou: > My point is that macro templates have to fit in a single line, no > newline character allowed. As a consequence, macro arguments are > implicitly expected to fit in a single line. So a newline character in > an argument is probably wrong. My point is that the form of the template really doesn't tell you much about the (possibly recursive) expansion and since the feature is relatively new there is absolutely no data to determine if such an assumption would restrict macros too much. I can certainly see good uses of linebreaks in macro expansions. > The current trend for macros is to be really simple so that advanced > (and not-so advanced) tasks are done with Babel instead. IOW, macros are > only useful if they are simpler than the simplest form of Babel usage. In this case, you probly can't or how do you get linebreaks into arguments of a Babel call (not using escape sequences)? > In every other case, Babel is a superior choice. I think that there is some middle ground to cover here. There is no reason to ask for confirmation in the example you gave for the vcard insertion, for example. All it does is a simple template expansion, in other words it acts like a multi-line macro definition with named parameters. > Your suggestion is interesting, but I think it would go backwards wrt > this. Babel is very nice, but I don't think we should foist it onto everyone, there are good reasons to stick to plain Org in some situations. The evaluation confirmation should get a bit smarter, too, but I don't see how to do that easily (I've already looked). The way things work at the moment you have to globally switch off confirmation for all but the most simple uses of Babel. Regards, -- Achim. (on the road :-)