Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> wrote: > Nick Dokos wrote: > > Carsten Dominik <carsten.domi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> :-) Actually, in this specific area I had been thinking to removing or at > >> least deprecating shell and elisp links, because the Org-babel way is much > >> better and clearer to have that code in a block, rather than hiding it in > >> the invisible part of of a link. > > > > Here is an early vote [1] for *not* removing shell and elisp links. > > Deprecation/documentation/scary warnings is fine with me, but I do use these > > kinds of links and I'd like to be able to continue using them. > > For my own understanding of what more I could do that I don't even think of > right now, *if not indiscreet/private*, could you give a couple of > applications of such links? >
Hi Seb, it's nothing spectacular: on the contrary, it's all the mundane things that I have various scripts for (either shell or elisp), e.g. munge with my jottings of the week and prepare a weekly report that is mailed to my manager and also exported to HTML for posterity - that's an elisp link. It's particularly things that I don't do often enough so I tend to forget what they are called, what arguments they take, etc. The links provide just enough documentation to jog my memory and a convenient way to launch the thing. I have a lot of these in many files: they tend to be very specific and so after a while the details slip away (e.g. the org file that describes all I know about a particular bug, might have a link to the bugzilla entry for the bug (an html link), email links, file links to data and a link to start a test run - this last is generally a shell link). Before org, for shell scripts, I would list my ~/bin directory and try to discern which of the many hundreds of scripts in there is the one that I need, and assuming that I would find it, I would then read the script to find what arguments it would need. Now, I visit an org file (one of a handful, organized by topic), read the link description and activate it. IOW, it could all be done in org-babel, but I started these a long time ago and I have accumulated so many of them, that converting would be a pain. In addition, they are spread out all over the place, so I would have to convert them one by one as I need them and there are so many possible places for Murphy's law to intrude, that losing the capability would be cause for serious concern for me. Hence the preemptive vote :-) Cheers, Nick _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
