On 2025-10-13 Mon 13:16, Christian Moe <[email protected]> wrote: > Titus von der Malsburg <[email protected]> writes: >> On 2025-10-13 Mon 00:02, Rudolf Adamkovič <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> We have a non-syntax convention that EMAIL: ... EMAIL+: ... >>>> properties are concatenated (according to `org-property-separators') >>> >>> +1 Semantically, this is the standard way, supported directly by the Org >>> APIs. It is what an Org user would expect to see used in the key-value >>> context of Org properties. Put simply, KEY and KEY+ is the standard >>> idiom, as seen everywhere in Org. BTW, I have been using this idiom for >>> invoicing, now for many years, and it works great in user code as well. > >> However, I’d still argue that there is an issue because >> `org-entry-properties' returns an arbitrary and undocumented subset of >> the properties when a property has multiple instances. Given the syntax >> above, this case should not arise, but I think it still be more >> consistent and correct to simply return everything. Assoc and friends >> will ignore the duplicates, it should therefore not cause harm (as >> explained in my last message). >> >> Plus, I think there is a documentation bug, since this particular use of >> the PHONE+ syntax is not explained in the documentation. Let me know if >> you want me to create a patch for that. > > Hmm. The :PROPERTYNAME+: syntax for adding to the value of PROPERTYNAME is > documented in the manual. It is illustrated both for "#+PROPERTY:" > keywords and for property drawers in the CD-collection example.
Clarification: I didn’t say that :PROPERTYNAME+: wasn’t documented at all. The issue is that the documentation uses it only to add values to properties inherited from ancestor nodes. It’s not clear from the documentation that it can also be used in the following way where it adds multiple values to the same node. * Test :PROPERTIES: :N: Test :PHONE: +12345 (WORK) :PHONE+: +23456 (CELL) :END: Best, Titus
