Re: Survey: changing a few default settings for Org 9.4

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Well, let's agree to disagree on this one.
>
> org-tempo and C-c C- fill two different use cases: the first one for
> fast block insertion while typing, the second one for e.g. when the
> region is selected.

I don't understand. C-c C-, combination is as fast as Org Tempo:

  C-c C-, s   : 3 keys
  < s TAB     : 3 keys

I can agree to disagree, but I don't buy the "fast block insertion while
typing" argument: they are as fast. We could even add an "expert"
interface that would not display the help menu for an even faster C-c
C-, experience. And, about the "while typing" part, C-c C-, can be used
anywhere amidst a line.

One true argument in favor of Org Tempo, however, is its extensibility.
IIRC, it can also insert non-block templates, e.g., "#+include:",
whereas C-c C-, cannot. Org has built-in completion for these, tho.

> M-x customize-option RET org-modules seems okay to me.

Then you may belong to the happy few that happen to find Customize
interface "okay". :>

I was speaking about "init.el" hacking. One must be cautious when
setting Org modules: it requires to be set before Org is loaded.

>> By the way, this does not belong to the same category as other
>> defcustoms discussed. This is only tangential to "how does Org should
>> look and feel by default". It relates to: should Org provide multiple
>> snippet extensions, knowing this is not a central feature, and Org is
>> often seen as bloated by Emacs devs? I don't think so, no matter how
>> useful this feature can be for some users.
>
> I'll be more receptive to this argument when animate-birthday-present
> is not in Emacs's core anymore :)

That's true. But I think they do have a point, though.

Also, my question is still open: is there any strong reason to provide,
out of the box, two template mechanisms in Org? This is genuine
question.

In any case, I don't think it is just a matter of personal preference,
like defcustoms. There should be some clear design decision behind the
answer. Let's un-bundle this issue from the rest of the poll, and think
about it separately.

> That said, I'm receptive to the idea that Org could be more focused to
> its core functionalities.  E.g., I think we could be more minimalistic
> about the ol-* and ox-* libraries in Org.

Hmmmm. This is another topic.

"ox-" are fine, IMO, even though I'm not sure about the health of
"ox-odt" these days.

"ol-*" libraries make sense as long as the suffix is bundled with Emacs.
E.g.,"ol-eww" is fine, but "ol-w3m" could be an external module.

A real issue, however, lies within "ob-*". Many of them require
libraries external to Emacs. There's a running bug report about it,
IIRC. We may not ship them with Emacs.

But, again, this is another topic.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou