From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: [PATCH] Process hlines in imported tables Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:30:26 -0600 Message-ID: <87vc7zfwpp.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20130329014615.GA49671@BigDog.local> <87wqsq6yd1.fsf@gmail.com> <20130329214238.GA53401@BigDog.local> <87r4ixah7y.fsf@gmail.com> <20130330234151.GA53721@BigDog.local> <87mwtkqtzh.fsf@gmail.com> <20130331122900.GA57939@BigDog.local> <87vc83bhma.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <867gkiz99z.fsf@somewhere.org> <87mwtepce2.fsf@gmail.com> <866202ko2q.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOW17-0001AN-ND for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:31:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOW13-00045t-79 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:31:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:35247) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOW12-00045l-Sy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:30:57 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u11so2502817pdi.36 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <866202ko2q.fsf@somewhere.org> (Sebastien Vauban's message of "Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:01:17 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org "Sebastien Vauban" writes: > Eric, > > Eric Schulte wrote: >> I would agree that this (meaning raw implies scalar) should either occur >> for all languages or for none. > > I think this is something interesting, but I wonder now if we wouldn't loose > more than we would win. I mean: how would one be able to output a real "raw" > result, then, that is one where pipes are not interpreted as table field > separator which have to be aligned in some specific way. > > Do we need another argument for that? > > I mean: at the end, raw should really be raw (no interpretation). If we want > some cycling for table alignment purpose (BTW, do you have lots of such code > blocks?), maybe it'd be better to introduce a `cycle' argument or so? > >> If we do have such header argument implications, then we'd want to put them >> into the weakest portion of the default header argument hierarchy. Currently >> this hierarchy looks something like >> >> 1. default header arguments shipped with Org-mode >> 2. user-set default header arguments >> 3. default languages-specific header arguments shipped with Org-mode >> 4. user-set default language-specific header arguments >> 5. buffer or file level header arguments >> 6. subtree header arguments >> 7. code block header arguments >> >> I think this raw implies verbatim action should probably take place >> somewhere between 3 and 4, but there could be arguments for other >> positions. Also, without looking at the code, I'm not sure how >> difficult adding such implications would be. > > Maybe I don't understand the problem correctly, but I'd think this "raw > implies verbatim" would have to take place after _each_ above step. > Actually I think I was confused when I wrote the above, so please disregard, sorry for the noise. Best, > > If between 3 and 4, then a raw specified on the block level (step 7) > wouldn't imply verbatim? Does that make sense? > > I think every raw (be it default, language, buffer, subtree or block-local) > would have to imply the same reasoning. > >> Are there other header argument implication rules which would make code >> blocks "do what I mean" more naturally in more situations? > > Best regards, > Seb -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte