From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Process hlines in imported tables Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:01:17 +0200 Message-ID: <866202ko2q.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <20130329014615.GA49671@BigDog.local> <87wqsq6yd1.fsf@gmail.com> <20130329214238.GA53401@BigDog.local> <87r4ixah7y.fsf@gmail.com> <20130330234151.GA53721@BigDog.local> <87mwtkqtzh.fsf@gmail.com> <20130331122900.GA57939@BigDog.local> <87vc83bhma.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <867gkiz99z.fsf@somewhere.org> <87mwtepce2.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Eric, Eric Schulte wrote: > I would agree that this (meaning raw implies scalar) should either occur > for all languages or for none. I think this is something interesting, but I wonder now if we wouldn't loose more than we would win. I mean: how would one be able to output a real "raw" result, then, that is one where pipes are not interpreted as table field separator which have to be aligned in some specific way. Do we need another argument for that? I mean: at the end, raw should really be raw (no interpretation). If we want some cycling for table alignment purpose (BTW, do you have lots of such code blocks?), maybe it'd be better to introduce a `cycle' argument or so? > If we do have such header argument implications, then we'd want to put them > into the weakest portion of the default header argument hierarchy. Currently > this hierarchy looks something like > > 1. default header arguments shipped with Org-mode > 2. user-set default header arguments > 3. default languages-specific header arguments shipped with Org-mode > 4. user-set default language-specific header arguments > 5. buffer or file level header arguments > 6. subtree header arguments > 7. code block header arguments > > I think this raw implies verbatim action should probably take place > somewhere between 3 and 4, but there could be arguments for other > positions. Also, without looking at the code, I'm not sure how > difficult adding such implications would be. Maybe I don't understand the problem correctly, but I'd think this "raw implies verbatim" would have to take place after _each_ above step. If between 3 and 4, then a raw specified on the block level (step 7) wouldn't imply verbatim? Does that make sense? I think every raw (be it default, language, buffer, subtree or block-local) would have to imply the same reasoning. > Are there other header argument implication rules which would make code > blocks "do what I mean" more naturally in more situations? Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban