Nick Dokos writes: > Here's a patch to enhance the property name completion list with names from > #+PROPERTY keyword lines: at the moment, only property names found in property > drawers are used to populate the completion list.
Thanks for the patch. > org: add property names from #+PROPERTY keywords to completion list > > * lisp/org.el (org-buffer-property-keys): ehhance the completion list Typo: enhance. And as a convention nit, it should be capitalized. > with property names from #+PROPERTY keywords, not just property > drawers. > > See https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/59448/ for details. > --- > lisp/org.el | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el > index 748c058ca..0e83162e8 100644 > --- a/lisp/org.el > +++ b/lisp/org.el > @@ -13084,6 +13084,11 @@ COLUMN formats in the current buffer." > (props (append > (and specials org-special-properties) > (and defaults (cons org-effort-property org-default-properties)) > + ;; Get property names from #+PROPERTY keywords as well > + (mapcar (lambda (s) > + (let ((split (split-string s))) > + (nth 0 split))) > + (cdar (org-collect-keywords '("PROPERTY")))) > nil))) IMO the let-binding doesn't add any clarity over (nth 0 (split-string s)) I wondered about possible duplicates, but it looks like org-buffer-property-keys already takes care of that at the end. I think this patch is a clear improvement as is, but in the context of completion (and the stack exchange post you link to), isn't the handling around *_ALL keywords still a bit off? It seems a caller would want to complete without the _ALL; to use the example from that post, with "#+PROPERTY: GENRE_ALL ...", the caller would want to complete "GENRE". Is it worth providing special handling here?
