Kaushal Modi <kaushal.m...@gmail.com> writes: > I am hoping that using "begin_src org" preserves the meta data that a code > block is an Org snippet when the Org manual HTML pages are published on > orgmode.org.
Again, Org manual, as published in "orgmode.org", is generated through Texinfo, which treats "begin_src org" exactly as "begin_example". So, switching to "begin_src org" will not give us Org fontification in HTML output. > Moreover, the advantage of using "begin_example" instead is: >> 1. we can use fixed-width for one-liners, >> > > I personally don't see that as a big advantage. Whether the snippet is a > single line or more, one can just select those and use the Org structural > template insertion to wrap that with "#+begin_src org" .. "#+end_src". This is not about typing. When the markup is more visible than the contents, it is visual clutter. >> 2. Org fontification for source blocks can be sometimes misleading, >> as you sometimes cannot what is an example and what is not. > I didn't understand that limitation. I use Org src blocks quite liberally > in this Org document[1], some even with nested non-Org src blocks. > > #+BEGIN_SRC org :noweb-ref src-block-n-default-continue > ,#+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp +n > ;; This will be listed as line 22 > (message "This is line 23") > ,#+END_SRC > #+END_SRC > > I haven't found any issue. It is a matter of taste. I tested both when updating the manual, and eventually settled for example blocks. In any case, I have no strong opinion about it. I just lean towards simplicity. > While pasting that example, I realized, that you don't even need to > specially made an Org snippet an src block just because you want to use it > as a noweb ref in the manual. Making Org snippets, src blocks, always, just > feels like the right thing. I didn't understand this part.
