Hi Eric and Nick, Eric Schulte wrote: > Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> writes: >> Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Other than "colon confusion" (having to specify ``:results silent'' on >>> > the src block header line and ``results silent'' in the #+PROPERTY line >>> > to get the same behavior), this looks better. Not sure what (if >>> > anything) can or should be done about the colons. >>> > >>> >>> I don't know of a good solution for colons. If we decided to add colons >>> then the subtree property blocks would become akward, with entries like >>> >>> ** foo >>> :PROPERTIES: >>> ::results: silent >>> :END: >>> >>> I would say we could look for each value both with and without colons, >>> but property searches of this nature are slow and doubling the speed >>> impact simply for allow colon flexibility doesn't seem to be a good >>> tradeoff. I think this will just have to be something that users will >>> need to learn. >> >> [fn:1] ...but I take some perverse pleasure from the fact that both >> Suvayu and Seb asked the question :-) > > I noticed that too, and it no doubt means that this same question will > occur to future users.
I knew there was no beginning colon in the #+PROPERTY line (and that does not bother me). >> For example, how do we translate, in the new syntax, >> >> #+BABEL: :results output code append >> >> (where `:results' is the "name", and `output', `code' and `append' are >> "values")? > > The above would become > > #+PROPERTY: results output code append > > Since only one property may be specified per property line there is no > need for colons. This mirrors exactly the way the properties are saved > under subtrees in :PROPERTY: blocks. > > Multiple lines may be used to specify multiple properties. e.g., > > #+PROPERTY: results silent > #+PROPERTY: cache yes *But* I did not know it was limited to _one property per line_. Knowing that: - there is no confusion at all -- we simply (have to) know that the first word is the "name" without colon, and the rest are "values" - my argument in favor of #+PROPERTIES (over #+PROPERTY) simply falls. To sum up, I'm perfectly happy with the new choice. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
