>> One issue for me is the positioning of the level 0 property drawer.
>> Having the requirement for that drawer starting in the very first
>> line is too strong for me. I guess one would at least like to have
>> the option to add some configuration with the ‘-*-...-*-’ construct
>> which currently only works in the first line.
>
> Hmm, that should work right now. 0..n comment lines are supposed to be
> allowed anyways. I can debug that a bit later to see if something has
> gone amiss.
You are right! No need to debug anything. I had #+: lines before the
first property drawer. Sorry for the confusion.
>> Further I think one would also like to place #+: configuration lines
>> there in particular the #+title: line. What about allowing lines
>> starting with character # above the level 0 property drawer? And put
>> a newly created level 0 property drawer below the first line in the
>> file that does not start with #?
>
> The first patch allowed both coments ("# "-lines) and keyword lines
> (#+...:) as well. But I removed keyword lines for now to start with a
> bit more strict definition, per request from Nicolas. I think the
> parser will be happy if there is as little information abouve the
> drawer as possible, since it will have to retrace itself from the
> first line of the buffer every time it needs to verify that the drawer
> actually is the "proper" property drawer. If that makes sense. So the
> more restrictive we can allow us to be, the better the performance and
> the easier it will be to understand where the drawer goes. And less
> complexity.
Okay. I keep going with this setting.
I can imagine that the parser is happy with less possibilities
and the user is happy with fast parsing.
But I'm not 100% convinced that #+: lines should not be allowed before
the level 0 property drawer. E.g. #+title: in the first line looks nice
AFAICT.
> Happy to get more feedback on that decision though!
Hopefully some more feedback comes in...
Best regards,
--
Marco
