Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: Hi Nicolas,
> I think controlling how the bookmark locations are displayed is > a different feature, which may fit better in Bookmark than in Org. I think I see what you mean, but at the same time, it seems like an Org-specific feature since it calls org-tree-to-indirect-buffer. I guess I think of Org as building on core Emacs features, so putting an Org-specific feature in core bookmark.el seems...backwards? (Though I'm not sure that's what you meant...) > We could introduce a generic hook somewhere so that to permit users > adding their own display mechanism. However, the variable is, IMO, too > specific. That hook idea sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how it would be different than the built-in bookmark-handler feature. bookmark-handle-bookmark says that the handler it calls, "changes current buffer and point and returns nil, or signals a `file-error'," so that's what my org-bookmark-jump handler does, in an Org-specific way. The indirect-buffer feature could of course be removed from org-bookmark-jump, and a user could add it himself as advice that runs afterward. Or maybe something like an org-bookmark-jump-hook could be added to call other functions after jumping to an Org bookmark. I guess this is what you meant, I just had to talk myself through it. :) > On another topic, by looking at bookmark.el, it seems you shouldn't > create the internal representation of the bookmarks by hand, and use > setters instead (e.g., `bookmark-set-filename'). I went by the docstring for bookmark-make-record-function, which says that modes can set it buffer-locally for locations that should be treated specially, and that the function called should return a record according to bookmark-alist. I guess the setters are intended for modifying existing bookmarks...? Thanks for your feedback.
