Re: [DISCUSSION] Refactoring fontification system

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Tom Gillespie <tgbugs@gmail.com> writes:

>> As for lang parameter support in example blocks, would you mind creating
>> a separate feature request thread? Extending export blocks export will
>> require changing in parser syntax and thus should be discussed carefully
>> in a separate thread.
>
> I would strongly caution against allowing an optional #+begin_example lang
> syntax. It will lead to extreme confusion, even when users know to use org-lint.
> The reason for this is that example blocks do not have (and frankly should not
> have) full org-babel support. Babel is already complex enough as is without
> having to explain to a user that yes they can noweb an example block into
> a src block, but that they cannot noweb a source block into an example block.
>
> One of the most powerful features of src blocks is that they can go from being
> dumb examples all the way up to fully executable programs. Example blocks
> cannot do that, and adding features that overlap with code blocks is inviting
> duplicated effort and will confuse and frustrate users if they have
> the misfortune
> to start with an example block an then have to change mid way through to a
> code block.
>
> I also think that adding a parameter #+begin_example :lang bash to example
> blocks will also lead to confusion because now there are two different ways
> to specify what lang a block is. To me the answer should be to just use source
> blocks if you need highlighting, example blocks should not highlight at all in
> order to make the distinction clear.
>

+1. I hold the same view. 

I'm happy if example blocks have a highlighting which distinguishes them
as a 'block of something' i.e. slightly different background, smaller or different
font etc. However, they don't need font-locking style highlighting or
highlighting which is determined by a language setting. If you want that
level of highlighting, just use a src block, possibly disabling eval
when warranted.