Re: [DISCUSSION] Refactoring fontification system

[Phil Estival <pe@7d.nz>]

[2022-06-03 Wed 11:45] Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>:
 >
 > I'd like to hear if anyone has any idea on how to interpret the
 > following:
 >
 > 1. org-protecting-blocks is an internal auxiliary variable used to
 >    determine which blocks should be fontified using different major
 >    mode.
 >    It's value is ("src" "example" "export")
 >    So, #+begin_src lang and #+begin_export lang are fontified according
 >    to LANG. Makes sense.
 >    However, what about #+begin_example?
 >    org-element-example-block-parser does not appear to expect language
 >    specification in the example blocks. Only switches seems to be
 >    allowed. Am I missing something and Org actually allows example
 >    blocks to specify language? Or was it the case in the distant past
 >    versions of Org?


  - org-fontify-meta-lines-and-blocks-1
    is looking for begin_
    what comes after (src) is optional and can be anything

    Next it looks for "language" (match-string 5 to 7
    — it could be helpful to have comments indicating
    the number matching of the groups next to them).
    What gets fontified like a source block turns out to be:
    ,#+begin_{\w} <language> [<switches> <header arguments>]

    So this is fontified:

    #+begin_quote python
    def sss(): pass
    #+end_quote

    and this too:

    #+begin_fly awk
    BEGIN { woosh }
    #+end_fly

    Which is nice, but not interpreted like so
    by any export backend.


 >
 > 3. org-fontify-meta-lines-and-blocks-1 creates a special face for
 >    ("+title:" "+subtitle:" "+author:" "+email:" "+date:")
 >    The face name is org-document-info.
 >    But what about, say, +description: or +language:?
 >    Would it make more sense to fontify all the keywords from
 >    org-options-keywords instead?
 >

Makes more sense, yes.
I would have named them "directives"
rather than "keywords", but it's too late now.


Regards,
Phil