Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> wrote: > Whoa -- before this gets more confusing: > > Eric, did you push up a (new, or at least so far undocumented in the > manual) syntax involving a #+PROPERTIES line, as Nick and Sebastien > seem to understand you? > > Or was #+PROPERTIES just a typo, and you mean using the #+PROPERTY > line or :PROPERTIES: drawer, as provided in the manual? >
Here's the commit log (I think it reflects the code changes faithfully): ,---- | commit 04a978fde525a442f9de14d1a67783edd5c9cb78 | Author: Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> | Date: Thu Oct 20 13:31:20 2011 -0600 | | removing #+BABEL: lines in favor of general #+PROPERTIES: lines | | * lisp/ob.el (org-babel-params-from-buffer): Removing #+BABEL: lines | in favor of general #+PROPERTIES: lines. | | * doc/org.texi (Buffer-wide header arguments): Removing documentation | of the defunct #+BABEL: structure. `---- So #+BABEL was traded for #+PROPERTIES. Nick > Yours, > Christian > > (lamenting the demise of the #+BABEL header I'd just recently started > to use) > > > > On 10/20/11 10:12 PM, Eric Schulte wrote: > > Nick Dokos<nicholas.do...@hp.com> writes: > > > >> Eric Schulte<schulte.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I have just pushed up a change to the Org-mode git repository which > >>> removes support for #+BABEL lines. Please use the more general > >>> #+PROPERTIES lines instead. > >>> > >> > >> Coming late to the dance - sorry. I think that's very confusing. > >> "Property" is an overloaded term in org: we now have the :PROPERTIES: > >> drawer, the #+PROPERTY line and the #+PROPERTIES line (singular and > >> plural forms are already pretty bad). > > > > Do the #+PROPERTY and #+PROPERTIES lines have different semantics? > > > >> Also, there is the general concept of properties (the stuff that the > >> property API applies to). > >> > >> Unless there is an underlying unity of which I'm unaware, I'd strongly > >> suggest another term - perhaps CODE_BLOCK_HEADER_ARGUMENTS (plus > >> an easy-template for easy insertion). > >> > > > > Code blocks already piggy-back off of subtree properties pulling their > > header arguments out of the properties specified on the subtree level. > > Given that header arguments and properties are already thus interleaved > > I believe that properties should be used on the file-wide level as well, > > rather than introducing another synonymous keyword which adds no new > > functionality. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Best -- Eric > > > >
