Hello, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > >> I think there should be a direct mapping between Customize interface and >> values. Adding this macro as a band-aid to simply configuration is not, >> IMO, a solution. > > I think that current customize interface for org-capture-template is > perfectly fine. doct aids users who set org-capture-templates > programatically. I am merely pointing out that the programatically defined value is then no longer compatible with Customize interface. It may be important, or not. >> If capture templates values are too complicated, what about simplifying >> them, and possibly use this macro as a temporary solution to help >> transition? > > Could you elaborate what you are referring to? doct is a simplification > of otherwise more complex templates. Without doct, users may need to > write addition Elisp to define complex templates. With doct, a number of > things can be done in a more compact form. The fact that we need a tool like "doct" to write templates in a compact form may be a sign that the data type is not good enough. Actually it sounds like a failure somehow. Should templates definition be more compact out of the box? Could the data type be made more powerful to permit more complex templates without relying on doct? IOW, can a tool such a doct be made transparent to the user? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
