Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes:
> For the sake of consistency, I would suggest to drop the export back-end > relative keywords. "#+html:" and "#+latex:" are indeed disturbing > exceptions to the rule. They are also not so convenient (a net gain of > 2 lines). Why not. But let's not break backward compatibility just for the sake of consistency. >> 2) "Cumulative properties"? >> >> Here is a suggestion: use a syntaxe like >> >> #+var: foo 1 > > There is also "#+bind:", whose purpose is close enough. Indeed. Eric, would it be possible to use #+bind foo 1 instead of #+property var foo=1 ? >> 3) Wrapping/folding long #+xxx lines? >> >> This is an independant request -- see Robert McIntyre's recent >> question on the list. The problem is that fill-paragraph on >> long #+xxx lines breaks the line into comment lines, which is >> wrong. Filling like this: >> >> #+TBLFM: @3$1=@1$1+@2$1::@3$2=@1$2+@2$2::...::... >> : @3$2=@1$2+@2$2::... >> : @3$2=@1$2+@2$2::... > > #+tblfm: ... > #+tblfm: ... > #+tblfm: ... Not very elegant, but perhaps more efficient/consistent. >> But maybe generalizing the #+begin_xxx syntax for *all* #+xxx >> keywords. This would make the current >> org-internals-oriented/content-oriented difference between #+xxx >> and #+begin_xxx obsolete > > I suggest to avoid such a thing. Here are a few, more or less valid, > reasons: > > - That distinction is useful for the user (clear separation between > contents and Org control). > - It would penalize usage of special blocks. > - The need is localized to very few keywords: it isn't worth the added > complexity. > - It would be ugly: no more nice stacking of keywords, but a mix of > blocks and keywords, and blocks on top of blocks... Org syntax may > not be the prettiest ever, it doesn't deserve that. > - It would be a real pain to parse. Well, I agree with most of the reasons. Glad you stated them clearly. >> but this would spare us the cost of new syntax. > > On the contrary, creating a block for each keyword would mean a lot of > new syntax. > > We currently have 8 types of blocks (not counting dynamic blocks, whose > syntax is a bit different), all requiring to be parsed differently: > > 1. Center blocks, > 2. Comment blocks, > 3. Example blocks, > 4. Export blocks, > 5. Quote blocks, > 6. Special blocks, > 7. Src blocks, > 8. Verse blocks. I'm not sure what do you mean by "requiring to be parsed differently". Can you explain it? I understand they should be treated differently by the exporters, but I don't understand why they would need to be parsed differently. My idea was to avoid parsing both #+html and #+begin_html. And that #+begin_xxx syntax is already available for folding, which is a feature we might want for #+text and keywords like that. I would suggest this rule: #+begin_ is always for _content_ while #+keyword is always for internals that are removed when exporting. #+text, #+html, #+LaTeX are a few exception I can think of. Best, -- Bastien
