On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:43, Eric Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree this isn't obvious, if you have a suggestion for improving the > syntax please let me know.
I haven't looked into this matter, so this comment might not be relevant, but I do have a suggestion that I had earlier written for the *general* problem of choosing a syntax for new functionality when you don't have obvious models to follow. Some of the desiderata for a syntax include: consistent, easy to parse, hard to corrupt, simple to quote, simple to escape (especially with things like regexps that are already complicated), supports being confident that exporting will not exhibit unexpected behavior, easier for the user to remember without reference materials, flexible, extensible, supports macros, nestable, pretty-printable, a published reference standard, and print-readable (serializing). If your syntax has those, then you're doing well. If you don't have a model to follow (such as org or gnuplot), then Lisp (el because this is el or cl because it's a standard that is similar to el and meticulously speced) has usually had a lot of thought put into its syntax. You might get a joke or two, but we know better. :) Again, perhaps not relevant, but maybe food for thought for future questions about syntax. _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
