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 12:06:31 +0200
Message-ID: <87inyrijq0.fsf@saiph.selenimh>
References: <87bn4j8rvz.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]:38356)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1aycey-0003Xz-Pz
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 06:07:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1aycen-0002nM-2t
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 06:06:55 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:35795)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1aycem-0002jg-Tk
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 06:06:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bn4j8rvz.fsf@espresso.zeitkraut.de> (Albert Krewinkel's
	message of "Fri, 06 May 2016 11:20:16 +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@zeitkraut.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Albert Krewinkel <albert@zeitkraut.de> writes:

> Is there any chance that indentation-based nesting will become legit
> org-mode syntax?

I don't think so. It would introduce unnecessary complexity.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou