On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I like that suggestion - it is clear, easy to understand, gives other
advantages (you can "unset" variables in a subtree - which would be an
added bonus) and does not require any large changes in org files.
This suggestion would get my vote.
Cheers,
Rainer
> 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/
>
>
--
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)
Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa
Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F): +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44
Fax (D): +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44
email: rai...@krugs.de
Skype: RMkrug
