From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rainer M Krug Subject: Re: Writing .el files for org in org? Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:25:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87lhturac1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sio29op5.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50314) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnPG8-0007s6-Tu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 05:26:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnPG3-0000QZ-DN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 05:25:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sio29op5.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien's message of "Thu, 22 May 2014 10:56:22 +0200") 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: Aaron Ecay , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bastien writes: > Hi Rainer and Aaron, > > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> I am not so convinced that having all the elisp code in an org file >> would be convenient, since I am worried that would break the interactive >> features of elisp programming. > > My point of view too. > > On top of this, I see two problems: > > 1. there is the problem of minimizing the distance between what the > Org repository contains and what goes into the Emacs repository* > > 2. and the problem of imposing something that might not fit all > contributors. Using litterate programming for a few files but not > all is not a good option, and using litterate programming for all > files would be too much of a constraint for many... I see you point concerning using org files for all files, but the ob-LANGUAGE.el files are in their own class (LANGUAGE refers to e.g. R, sh, ...).=20 1) Many users of these features will have (at least a little) programming experience, not unlikely more in LANGUAGE then in emacs-lisp. 2) the functions in these files are the actual interface between the LANGUAGE and org, and it is more important here that they can be understood and changes suggested by their users then in the org core files, as specialist users of a specific LANGUAGE might discover problems, = of which the original author might not be aware of or which have been introduced by updates in LANGUAGE. So I would argue that in ob-LANGUAGE.el files the non-elisp-expert is more likely to look and work then in the core org files wherefore an a more familiar interface for these changes (literate programming in org) would provide more advantages then in the org-core files. Cheers, Rainer > > Best, > > * That's also the reason why I'm skeptical about having the manual > written as org.org instead of org.texi -- I mean, I'd be glad to be > able to edit the manual as org.org, but having a preliminary export > step before importing org.texi into Emacs might create problems. =2D-=20 Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,= UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany) Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Stellenbosch University South Africa Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44 Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98 Fax : +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44 Fax (D): +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44 email: Rainer@krugs.de Skype: RMkrug PGP: 0x0F52F982 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTfcKbAAoJENvXNx4PUvmChawIAOUDFbLblUcESNYPfUgMvZOy YCrrslxRpJoDeKIoSkhToZ0q7OostyyU8uOBeZEQPrsQ/crCTyCOLF3Eb5KLwzD2 6swADE5pbmXDDRJVzXHZlI/3HzBxwhGdHT0fBjdhhh1amzqQMtwjaJLWgROEFVIZ 2c+Cm3dD9e2h3eOX74wJ7SrKzYmeRB6kL0HB1RSqC8bTBFR95h7is0ef1V1IN9fl QudNmWFMr2/OzwJyN+PXJgDZwRShjosFaMiS50tlSNMZlpzHB5Lv24PiuV6U9fzD zSTlef7R90CBFS7pCTee/csfER0GXrdwd+zsOy2Z58u/0DWhIyNGA0aWjqHn6Tg= =UNej -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--