Re: [ANN] BREAKING CHANGE -- removing #+BABEL file-wide property lines

[Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>]

Christian Moe <mail@christianmoe.com> wrote:

> Whoa -- before this gets more confusing:
> 
> Eric, did you push up a (new, or at least so far undocumented in the
> manual) syntax involving a #+PROPERTIES line, as Nick and Sebastien
> seem to understand you?
> 
> Or was #+PROPERTIES just a typo, and you mean using the #+PROPERTY
> line or :PROPERTIES: drawer, as provided in the manual?
> 

Here's the commit log (I think it reflects the code changes faithfully):

,----
| commit 04a978fde525a442f9de14d1a67783edd5c9cb78
| Author: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
| Date:   Thu Oct 20 13:31:20 2011 -0600
| 
|     removing #+BABEL: lines in favor of general #+PROPERTIES: lines
|     
|     * lisp/ob.el (org-babel-params-from-buffer): Removing #+BABEL: lines
|       in favor of general #+PROPERTIES: lines.
|     
|     * doc/org.texi (Buffer-wide header arguments): Removing documentation
|       of the defunct #+BABEL: structure.
`----

So #+BABEL was traded for #+PROPERTIES.

Nick


> Yours,
> Christian
> 
> (lamenting the demise of the #+BABEL header I'd just recently started
> to use)
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/20/11 10:12 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
> > Nick Dokos<nicholas.dokos@hp.com>  writes:
> >
> >> Eric Schulte<schulte.eric@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have just pushed up a change to the Org-mode git repository which
> >>> removes support for #+BABEL lines.  Please use the more general
> >>> #+PROPERTIES lines instead.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Coming late to the dance - sorry. I think that's very confusing.
> >> "Property" is an overloaded term in org: we now have the :PROPERTIES:
> >> drawer, the #+PROPERTY line and the #+PROPERTIES line (singular and
> >> plural forms are already pretty bad).
> >
> > Do the #+PROPERTY and #+PROPERTIES lines have different semantics?
> >
> >> Also, there is the general concept of properties (the stuff that the
> >> property API applies to).
> >>
> >> Unless there is an underlying unity of which I'm unaware, I'd strongly
> >> suggest another term - perhaps CODE_BLOCK_HEADER_ARGUMENTS (plus
> >> an easy-template for easy insertion).
> >>
> >
> > Code blocks already piggy-back off of subtree properties pulling their
> > header arguments out of the properties specified on the subtree level.
> > Given that header arguments and properties are already thus interleaved
> > I believe that properties should be used on the file-wide level as well,
> > rather than introducing another synonymous keyword which adds no new
> > functionality.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Best -- Eric
> >
> 
>