From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: FR: source code Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:36:41 +0000 Message-ID: <87fxwyobc6.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87bq7w5zp0.fsf@shellarchive.co.uk> <87hchoh0tj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEwGv-0006wc-US for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:49 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEwGt-0006sX-NY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:49 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEwGt-0006sK-DS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:47 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JEwGt-0002E8-3E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:47 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so58607fga.30 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:36:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Ed Hirgelt's message of "Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:33:04 -0800") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Ed Hirgelt writes: >> On Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM, Bastien wrote: >>> #+IF_HTML / #+ENDIF_HTML >>> #+IF_LaTeX / #+ENDIF_LaTeX >>> #+IF_TXT / #+ENDIF_TXT >>> >>> and >>> >>> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE / #+END_EXAMPLE >>> #+BEGIN myblock >>> >>> What people think? >> >> Being someone who uses org-mode primarily for the appearance in the >> org-buffer while I'm editing and using org, I really do not like this. >> It may format nicely after export, but it looks ugly in the buffer. > > I definite agree with that. I, too, primarily use org-mode for the > way things look in Emacs. I occasionally export but my main use is > within emacs. I do agree with both reactions - I feel the same. But this was not really the point I was trying to make. We already have these directives: ,---- | #+BEGIN_HTML | #+BEGIN_LaTeX | #+BEGIN_TXT | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE | #+BEGIN myblock `---- Would that be clearer to have: ,---- | #+IF_HTML | #+IF_LaTeX | #+IF_TXT | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE | #+BEGIN myblock `---- ...so that the #+IF* directives tell what text to include in the target format, while #+BEGIN* directives tell what to do with the environment: make it an example, or insert the output of a function, etc. But thinking about this twice, I finally think it might be better to generalize the use of the dynamic blocks. #+BEGIN my_dynamic_block #+BEGIN => inserts the output of (my_dynamic_block) #+BEGIN org-export :format "html" This will exported in HTML only. #+END #+BEGIN org-export :format "html" :fontify "emacs-lisp" ;; This will be exported in any format ;; and properly fontified thru htmlize.el (defgroup org nil "Outline-based notes management and organizer." :tag "Org" :group 'outlines :group 'hypermedia :group 'calendar) #+END This way we just have one directive (#+BEGIN) and we can have several special dynamic blocks (just as we already have one for inserting clock reports) taking care of what we want to do with this part of the buffer. My 2 cents, -- Bastien