From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Do not declare drawers to use them Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:43:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87y559yxvm.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87txgc3vvb.fsf@gmail.com> <15535970-9B71-4CF7-8C89-8C9E2328D36C@gmail.com> <87iowr3ppx.fsf@gmail.com> <9A314B0A-5421-46F6-B56A-B801E0E77694@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58085) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbz5b-0002Jq-HZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:43:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbz5R-0006iz-K0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:43:35 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4008:c01::22b]:64114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbz5R-0006iv-Cd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:43:25 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mz11so1211179bkb.2 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9A314B0A-5421-46F6-B56A-B801E0E77694@gmail.com> (Carsten Dominik's message of "Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:21:26 +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: Carsten Dominik Cc: Org Mode List Hello, Carsten Dominik writes: > On 21.10.2013, at 12:03, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Carsten Dominik writes: >> >>> I think one objection agains this patch is that, I think, MobileOrg >>> relies on #+DRAWERS lines to be present to define drawers. >> >> The patch also contains org-mobile.el modifications. >> >>> Maybe the MobileOrg maintainers for both Android and iOS can chime in >>> here? >> >> Obviously, a double check cannot hurt. >> >>> Otherwise I don't have a significant objection against this change. >>> I am wondering if it is going to introduce spurious drawers and >>> parsing errors if someone happens to have a string :xxx: on a line by >>> itself in the buffer. This might be unlikely, but I am not really >>> sure. >> >> Actually, as far as the parser goes, :xxx: is insufficient to define >> a drawer. Indeed, the drawer has to be complete, i.e. it has to contain >> the :END: part. >> >> An incomplete drawer does not trigger a parsing error: it is parsed as >> a mere paragraph. > > OK, sounds good to me, then. Applied. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou