On Sun, May 11 2025, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Kristoffer Balintona <krisbalint...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Thank you for the help. I've attached a diff for a set of proposed >> changes. It has `org-capture-expand-olp' and >> `org-capture-expand-headline' return the symbol 'file in certain cases >> and has `org-capture-set-target-location' treat those cases specially, >> inserting the capture entry at the top level. Additionally, I updated >> the docstring of `org-capture-templates' appropriately and added an >> additional test in `test-org-capture/org-capture-expand-olp'. > > Why not just using nil value as you initially suggested?
Currently, both `org-capture-expand-headline' and `org-capture-expand-olp' error when the expanded headline or olp, respectively, return nil. I wanted to preserve that assuming there was a good reason behind this decision. Do you think interpreting a nil value in this way is more appropriate? >> ... Although I've never contributed to org before, so I will >> have to read up on the conventions for patches. > > See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html#patches Thank you. >> A separate matter: >> I find it unusual that we have the file+olp and file target >> specifications but not a file+datetree target specification. As a >> result, file+olp+datetree accepts a nil olp to insert the datetree on >> the top level but file+olp does not because that would just be >> equivalent to the file target specification. I feel like we should >> either add one or do something like removing the file specification and >> having file+olp cover its case. > > We used to have file+datetree target, and a number of others. They have > been consolidated into a single file+olp+datetree in Org 9.1, 8 years ago. > See > https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/CADn3Z2+AanLPvUO9ENhZ_2tkAvsmdnq9ewR3sFasn=zv--s...@mail.gmail.com/ Should we do the same with file and file+olp? Or would that be too backwards incompatible? -- Best, Kristoffer
