One more idea that has occurred to me, it should give all of the
functionality which we desire (i.e., the ability for a property value to
span multiple lines and to be accumulated at the subtree level), and it
should require *no* new syntax. The only problem is it puts a
limitation on possible property names -- namely that they can not end
with the + character.
The proposal is, when a property name ends in +, the value is appended
to the corresponding property, rather than replacing it, so
#+PROPERTY: var foo=1
#+PROPERTY: var bar=2
results in '(("var" . "bar=2"))
#+PROPERTY: var foo=1
#+PROPERTY: var+ , bar=2
results in '(("var" . "foo=1, bar=2"))
This way subtree properties could be used as well, e.g.,
#+PROPERTY: var foo=1
* subtree
:PROPERTIES:
:var+: bar=2
:CUSTOM_ID: something
:END:
Just another thought.
Best -- Eric
Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't understand why the `org-accumulated-properties-alist' solution
> seems like a hack, could someone elaborate. To me that still feels like
> the most natural solution.
>
> more below...
>
>>>> 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
>>
>
> No, this would not for subtree-level properties, i.e., in a property
> block under a subtree there would be no way to tell if a property is a
> #+var:. I think if this were an approach, a more elegant solution would
> be for users to customize the `org-babel-default-header-args' variable
> using Emacs' file-local-variable feature -- which is possible now and
> may end up being the best solution.
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I like this solution, especially as I have often struggled with long and
> unreadable tblfm lines. The problem with using this for property lines
> would be in the case of
>
> #+property: foo bar
> #+property: baz qux
>
> whether the above should be parsed as
>
> '(("foo" . "bar") ("baz" . "qux"))
>
> or
>
> '(("foo" . "bar baz qux"))
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, I agree some of the above are very motivating.
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I also wouldn't think of this as new syntax, I don't see 8 rules for the
> 8 types above but rather one rule along the lines of #+begin_SOMETHING
> where the SOMETHING can be anything.
>
> Best -- Eric
>
>>
>> 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,
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
