arthur miller <[email protected]> writes: >>> No to be a devils advoce, but I am not sure you do. If we look at: >>[...] >>> ‘%(EXP)’ >>> Evaluate Elisp expression EXP and replace it with the result. The >> >> I agree with Ihor that using "(EXP)" here should help to avoid ambiguity. > > I am sorry, I am not trying to be impolite, but they are both *equally* > ambigous for the same reason I took up in previous two mails.
> .. > It is not about being "ugly" or "pretty". It is about being consistent > with Lisp. Double parenthesis arise in other places too, that is not a > big deal in Lisp. I have updated the documentation. Hopefully the ambiguity will not be there anymore. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/commit/?id=0f534d5d6 I think %(EXP) notation comes back to diary sexp format %%(EXP) (see 33.10.5 Special Diary Entries in Emacs manual). We have the same format in capture templates and also in agenda prefix format. Also, I find %((EXP)) less intuitive than %(EXP) and I never had any issues with the existing format, so your perspective, while valid, is not unique. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
