From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Question on nested-blocks syntax
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 14:01:43 +0200
Message-ID: <874mabiee0.fsf@saiph.selenimh>
References: <87bn4j8rvz.fsf@espresso.zeitkraut.de>
	<87inyrijq0.fsf@saiph.selenimh> <8737pv8osk.fsf@espresso.zeitkraut.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34660)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ayeST-0003xX-Lk
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 08:02:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ayeSH-0002YD-Ji
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 08:02:08 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:52054)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ayeSH-0002UW-Ca
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 08:02:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8737pv8osk.fsf@espresso.zeitkraut.de> (Albert Krewinkel's
	message of "Fri, 06 May 2016 12:27:07 +0200")
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"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Albert Krewinkel <albert+orgmode@zeitkraut.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Albert Krewinkel <albert+orgmode@zeitkraut.de> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

>> I don't think so. It would introduce unnecessary complexity.
>
> I guess that makes sense.  Too bad, though.

My answer was terse. Let me elaborate a bit.

There are a few issues that come to mind when considering this. 

First, you cannot use regexps to parse an example block anymore. You
have to read a line after another until you find the end of the block.
This is more complex.

Also, it defeats the "-i" flag, which allows an user to ignore
indentation in an example block.

In any case, as long as fontification is not based on top of the parser,
I think we should refrain from introducing too deep changes in the
syntax without a serious motivation (e.g., speed concerns, or ambiguous
cases) behind it. I sympathize with aesthetics concerns, Org syntax,
particularly blocks, is "massive", but I think this is not a sufficient
motivation here.

Regards,