On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Eric Schulte
<schulte.eric@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to make it as easy as possible for everyone....
> Might it be possible to introduce a small flags like "obsolete" and
> "stable" (standard)
> Old functions, old syntax, etc., might move first to obsolete before
> completely removed...
> We could open an older file and if it isn't working, we could try
>
> #+PROPERTY: babel-function-set obsolete
>
I think that making use of such a feature is almost as onerous as
changing to the new terms (which is a simple search replace, in fact
once terms are selected I'll happily share a function on list which can
be used to convert all old terms in existing Org-mode files).
The problem are not every-day users, but if one is not using org-mode not using for some time, it might be difficult to figure out what has changed - also, I wou't remember in three years time, that these things have changed, and run into problems when trying to open an old org-file (in the case of literae programming not unlikely).
But I also see your point - Eric.
Would it be an option to include a function which checks if these files do include the old / deprecated keywords, and inform the user? This function could even, in this case here, suggest to do the replacing. This function could be over time extended, whenever in-compatible changes become necessary - it would be a kind of an org-to-org converter or org-version-checker?
Concerning voting:
Definitely #+call.
I don't like the #+srcname, because most of my blocks are not named, and it would look weired (I have never used #+tblname but if I also think that that looks weired if there is no name coming afterwards...).
I would vote for:
#+src
#+object
sounds more "modern" then data.
Just an idea ():
#+object_begin var
x = 1
y = 2
#+end
could possible be used for as an alternative for :var ?
And the #+results should stay for generated data to keep them separate (will / can be programmatically changed)
Cheers,
Rainer
>
> if it works, we have to modify the code, because obviously the code
> requires changed to be compatible in the future. However, just for the
> moment it is still working. This would give people more time to change
> there code accordingly. As murphy law tells us one will notice that
> the particular file is broken exact 5 minutes before the meeting with
> your boss standing behind you yelling.... print it, print it ;)
>
> I know git would be perfect to keep the code base frozen for a certain
> syntax. However, babel is bundled with org-mode which is bundled with
> Emacs. Thus, it might be very difficult to tell people they have to
> use org-babel from git with the tag [org-babel_XX] if they want to use
> there old style files. AFAIK org-babel does not even come with a own
> version numbering, right?
>
> Alternatively, keep the syntax a little bit longer as it is and create
> warning messages to point users to future changes (not sure how much
> time left for emacs24)
> "Warning: #+lob: in line XX is obsolete, please use #+call: in the
> future. (manual-link)"
>
> To make is short, is is possible to introduce changes "slowly"
>
I fear this would simply serve to introduce more complexity and
confusion.
>
> As for voting:
> [1]
> #+function: would be what I would expect from other programming
> languages. Where an unnamed source code block would be something like
> a lambda function.
> However, "function" as a term is heavily used in many target languages
> too. This makes parsing, reading and discussing a bit difficult. ("I
> called the function foo", "Wait, do you call the org-mode function
> foo, or the python function foo?")
> Thus, I vote for #+srcname similar to #+tblname to make sure about the
> difference between org-babel and the target languages.
>
> [2]
> #+call:, simply because I never can remember "lob" and the acronym is
> something difficult for newbies.
>
noted, thanks
>
> [3]
> I tend to #+results: because it fits more to the entire babel syntax.
> However, earlier on the mailing list people were pointing out that one
> is going to change "results" for a unknown source block (that was the
> reason "data" was introduced).... and I think this is a valid
> argument. Maybe "data" and "results" should be both valid if only to
> pleasure human thinking. However, if I understood correctly, maybe
> data could be changed to be more some type of constant? That is,
> #+data: foo can not be changed by a source code block named foo
> (because it isn't a "result" but "data") but only by human (as a
> "data" input). Does this make sense?
>
yes, I'll mark you down for "data and results", which I think is a
perfectly fine option.
Thanks for sharing -- Eric
>
> Totti