From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Wiegley Subject: Re: Allowing loose ordering in Org files Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:52:35 -0800 Message-ID: References: <871tc83p01.fsf@flynn.nichework.com> <84io5j1k5h.fsf@gmail.com> <84611j19hk.fsf@gmail.com> <5638C2A1.2090801@iancu.ch> <87h9l32gfc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d1vq3mh4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874mh23iw0.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878u6eu5wg.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <315DDEDC-1BD9-4680-A8C8-B36821EB931C@gmail.com> <874mh2u2w0.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ziytyl3z.fsf@free.fr> <877flqskci.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47452) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zvy71-0001WM-2U for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:52:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zvy6y-0000AX-4C for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:52:42 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]:36348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zvy6x-0000AJ-Uz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:52:40 -0500 Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so193245061pac.3 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from Vulcan.attlocal.net (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qj4sm668008pbc.21.2015.11.09.17.52.38 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:52:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877flqskci.fsf@gmail.com> (Aaron Ecay's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 01:40:13 +0000") 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org >>>>> Aaron Ecay writes: > Adding knobs to this parser increases the burden of those who have to bui= ld > and maintain it. Thank you for your reply, Aaron, I found it most illuminating. If the answer from the maintainers is "It's more work than we want to do", that's completely acceptable. I've been operating under the premise that it wouldn't be difficult to add such an option (just the hook, mind you, not t= he functionality behind it). I suppose at this point it becomes a question of whether others want this as much as I do. If it's just a handful of us, and the maintainers find the option onerous, that's really the end of it. > I think it=E2=80=99s more illuminating to think of it in terms of org as = a tool: > have the changes made it more difficult for you to accomplish your goals > with org? Has something that was previously possible become impossible? H= as > something that was previously easy gotten harder? If the answer to one of > these questions is yes, then we can think of ways to solve the difficulti= es. There is another vector to consider, and a far more nebulous one: How does = it impact Org's "luft"? That is, the feeling of ease and comfort Org conveys in its use. There are many highly functional alternatives to Org that I've tried and rejected because they lack the easy grace of Org. That grace is why I've be= en able to stick with it after almost 9,000 handled tasks. Any perception of "inertia" in a tasking system causes me to psychologically avoid it, even i= f I have no rational basis for that aversion. I sincerely hope that those with high technical motives will keep in mind t= he usability of Org beyond purely technical considerations. It should say something that a long-time user is unhappy with the way Org "feels" in 8.3. John