Re: Allowing loose ordering in Org files

[Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>]

John Wiegley writes:
> If the answer from the maintainers is "It's more work than we want to do",
> that's completely acceptable. I've been operating under the premise that it
> wouldn't be difficult to add such an option (just the hook, mind you, not the
> functionality behind it).

To answer your question from another post: If we add a hook, but not the
functionality behind it, then we are going to advertise something we
don't recommend to do on grounds that a random user might very well not
comprehend.  If we do add the functionality we might be better off with
an option rather than a hook, but then we incur the debt of having to
support it both in the syntax and the implementation.  That was the
reason I asked you about simply advising some function.  It doesn't
advertise some option that then isn't implemented and if someone really
cares about that functionality we can still show (even on Worg) how to
do it.  But not in the Org manual or as an official option.

[There was a precedent to this with Org 7 where you could go in and
change what Org considered a headline.  When this was changed we've had
similar discussions and I expect this one to take the same route to be
honest.]

> There is another vector to consider, and a far more nebulous one: How does it
> impact Org's "luft"? That is, the feeling of ease and comfort Org conveys in
> its use.

If you don't use properties then it doesn't affect you at all.  If you
do, then… well, I personally simply don't care.  Just like there's
several style guides for writing C; as long as these are applied
consistently I can live with most of them and put the braces and indents
the way they prescribe.

> There are many highly functional alternatives to Org that I've tried and
> rejected because they lack the easy grace of Org. That grace is why I've been
> able to stick with it after almost 9,000 handled tasks. Any perception of
> "inertia" in a tasking system causes me to psychologically avoid it, even if I
> have no rational basis for that aversion.
>
> I sincerely hope that those with high technical motives will keep in mind the
> usability of Org beyond purely technical considerations. It should say
> something that a long-time user is unhappy with the way Org "feels" in 8.3.

So write the advise and move on?  If you weren't so heavily invested in
what you perceive as "the right style" you quite likely wouldn't care,
or would you?


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf microQ V2.22R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada