From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Links in node-property Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:05:01 +0100 Message-ID: <87zjl9o9rm.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87d2i5pt39.fsf@gmail.com> <87bnxp8vzf.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJs1W-0002Vh-09 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJs1Q-00019f-9r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bnxp8vzf.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien's message of "Sat, 01 Mar 2014 22:11:48 +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: Bastien Cc: Michael Brand , Org Mode Bastien writes: > Believe me, there *are* links in comments, I can see them :) > > Right now, hitting C-c C-o on this link > > # http://orgmode.org > > in an org-mode buffer produces the attached backtrace, which is > a problem /per se/ (easily fixable, I guess.) My bad. This should now be fixed. > Anyway, not supporting links in comments does not feel right, as > links in comments are both frequent and useful. Comments, by definition, are dead data. It just doesn't make sense to expect to have an active link, or timestamp, or whatever inside. If you put an active timestamp in a comment, you don't expect it to show in the agenda, right? If you need live non-exportable data, you can stuff it in a regular drawer. > I'm sorry for the frustration it will inevitably create, but at this > stage I suggest to simply revert the commits related to the rewriting > of `org-open-at-point'. To my knowledge, there is no bug that this > rewrite fixes, there is no gain in speed, and only a regression (not > opening the next link) and a bug (see `org-agenda-open-link'.) > > What do you think? I think that if we reverted each buggy commit, we wouldn't be far from the very first commit in Org. Anyway, I suggest to either explain to me why opening the next link is needed, so we can discuss on how to do it best, or implement the feature yourself, as you intended to do a few minutes ago. In any case, I don't see the need to trash the few hours of work I invested already in this (well, almost) working function. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou