From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: Allowing loose ordering in Org files Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: <874mgvym5f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> References: <871tc83p01.fsf@flynn.nichework.com> <84611j19hk.fsf@gmail.com> <5638C2A1.2090801@iancu.ch> <87h9l32gfc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d1vq3mh4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874mh23iw0.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878u6eu5wg.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <315DDEDC-1BD9-4680-A8C8-B36821EB931C@gmail.com> <874mh2u2w0.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ziytyl3z.fsf@free.fr> <87d1vjyojv.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zvsgb-0001Jt-3Y for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:05:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvsgV-00020s-3s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:05:04 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:36096) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvsgU-00020Z-UN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:04:59 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvsgT-0004Lv-F7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:04:57 +0100 Received: from p54b47b6e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([84.180.123.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:04:57 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by p54b47b6e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:04:57 +0100 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 John Wiegley writes: >> You will find that the argument really wasn't about performance, but >> complexity. > > I can accept a complexity argument, I meant O() complexity, not implementation complexity. > if my request were really "a separate > code-path". I'm not sure it is. For example, my needs could be satisfied by > something as simple as: > > (defun parse-org-entry (...) > (let ((props (funcall 'parse-org-properties-function ...))) > ...)) > > `parse-org-properties-function' would point to a function that does what Org > 8.3 does now. This gives me the option of porting over the 8.2 version and > keeping the old behavior. All that needs to be done is to allow this hook, no? If it's not about providing the alternative behaviour within Org, then what does this allow you to do that advising parse-org-entry can't? A hook still has the cost of simply being there even when I don't use it. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada