Hi Nicolas, On 13/06/2020 17:18, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > Mario Frasca writes: > >> I can leave existing loops in peace, or edit them keeping them >> cl-loop-free.  as for myself, I find it practical and readable. > Then you'll enjoy reading, e.g., `org-contacts-try-completion-prefix'. > FWIW, I don't. oops. I do see your point here.  no, at this level, it's not pleasant any more. > I don't know Org Plot enough, but these expectations should be located > in "org-plot.el". I expect `org-table-to-lisp' to be as faithful as > possible. In particular, this function is used in `org-table-align'; as > such, it should not do anything fancy. I have removed the changes, and added some tests that freeze the current behaviour. that was already in the last patch I sent. > Unit tests are not worth a formal definition. However, "test-ox.el" > contains unit tests. I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but I found the header tests in the test-ox.el file, and added one where multiple lines header is accepted.  is it related enough as to be included in my proposal? to me, unit tests are readable function definitions, often the best form of technical documentation.  I have had colleagues writing tests that weren't "unitary" at all, mixing all sort of elements together.  when written as an after-thought, it's a serious risk. > So, if your question is: "should Org support multiple lines headers?", > I'd say that it already does, but it should definitely be made more > consistent across the various libraries (e.g., Org Plot). I can move the org-table-collapse-header function from org-table.el to org-plot.el, but to me it makes little sense, relegating a generic function to a sub-module: others will look for the functionality in org-table, not see it, and duplicate the function somewhere else. for example, do I understand it correctly, that the concept defined in the export functionality, but not in org-table itself? anyhow, what do we do next? MF