Hello,
Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes:
> thank you for the patch. I understand the general idea, but I think
> we should be careful not to overload the macro syntax - escaping the
> coma seems okay to me. I'm closing this suggestion.
>
> I'm cc'ing Nicolas: if he thinks it's a useful addition, I won't of
> course insist on rejecting it.
This is a followup to a previous discussion in this mailing list, in
which Juan Manuel explained his use-case for a different argument
separator in macros. I noticed then that there was an opening for
a backward compatible syntax extension for it. As I was also not certain
it would be a good idea overall, I suggested him to start a new, more
visible, thread with the proposal, and collect feedback.
So, maybe it is a bit early to close it.
BTW, I would like to amend the proposed syntax, so as to limit friction
with the rest of Org. What would be more reasonable is the following:
{{{macroname·(...)}}}
where · is either nothing or a _single_ printable non-alphanumeric
non-space non-parenthesis character that isn't already meaningful in
Org. For example, if for some reason, we limit ourselves to ASCII
characters only, the set of allowed separators would be:
! % & , ; ? `
So, again, I'm not saying we should do this. TBH, I'm not convinced by
the idea of duplicate syntax (comma-escaping and alternate characters)
for the same thing. But hard-core macro users may have a word to say
about it.
WDYT?
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
