From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: [RFC] Syntax for macros Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:59:08 -0500 Message-ID: <87y51x8kyr.fsf@alphaville.bos.redhat.com> References: <86ha8n6ulq.fsf@somewhere.org> <87y51zta1a.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <867g9hiwzy.fsf@somewhere.org> <87sis592gg.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <8638k5iw3i.fsf@somewhere.org> <8738k57ebi.fsf@gmail.com> <86zjmdfrgl.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43740) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8uxj-0000z5-9V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:59:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8uxd-0007lm-SX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:59:35 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39492) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8uxd-0007la-LY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:59:29 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W8uxZ-0005Wj-Rp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:25 +0100 Received: from pool-98-110-175-184.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.175.184]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:25 +0100 Received: from ndokos by pool-98-110-175-184.bstnma.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:25 +0100 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >> There is also backwards compatibility to consider. > > How? You know, when many, many, many keywords or options changed > between Org 7.9 and Org 8.0, there was nothing to support backward > compatibility: much too complex, I guess. > Yes, indeed: OTOH there was widespread recognition that the ad-hoc nature of certain things and creeping featuritis in org-mode was causing problems and there was a consensus (at least on the list) that having the pain concentrated in one (major) release was the way to go. I think in general org-mode is better because of the changes, but that does not mean that there have not been problems, as you no doubt have noticed. That does not mean that we can push changes that break peoples' workflows (yes, I know: http://xkcd.com/1172/ ) willy nilly. They either have to come at major releases with plenty of warning, or they have to be backwards compatible or there has to be widespread consensus that that is a desirable course of action - and I'd raise the bar very high on this last case. Are you advocating that the macro syntax should be changed without worrying about backwards compatibility? That might work if almost nobody uses macros currently[fn:1], but my impression is that they are used fairly widely. > Add a variable "org-support-old-macro-syntax" seems overkill to me. But, > yes, I know, that's something that will have to be clearly mentioned in > the NEWS as something that did change, and as some consequences. > No: I'm saying that if this change is implemented, {{{foo}}} should be deprecated (probably raising a deprecation warning when encountered) and that both {{foo}} and {{{foo}}} should work identically, at least until the next major release (we can debate whether that's 8.3 or 8.4 or 9.0). At that point and forever after, the old syntax starts raising errors instead of warnings. Footnotes: [fn:1] E.g. QUOTE was an example of a change that could go through, precisely because nobody was using it. COMMENT could not go quietly into oblivion in the same way however: it was used widely. -- Nick