Unless I have missed something in the e-mails, the new syntax is to concatenate new variables to the var property. Not modifying the values currently stored in some variable. That is, #+property: var foo=2 #+property: var+ 5 (not specifying the variable name ) should not be allowed and #+property: var foo=2 #+property: var+ foo=5 #+property: var+ bar="bar" should result in foo=5 and bar="bar". Is modifying a variable also a new feature?
-- Darlan At Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:06:48 +0100, Rainer M Krug <r.m.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [1 <text/plain; ISO-8859-1 (7bit)>] > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Sebastien Vauban < > wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> wrote: > > > Hi Rainer, > > > > Rainer M Krug wrote: > > >> > * appending to a file-wide property > > >> > :PROPERTIES: > > >> > :var+: , baz=3 > > >> > :END: > > >> > > >> To be honest, the only thing that I dislike is the comma in the above > > line. > > >> Not intuitive at all. Quite hard to read. > > >> > > >> Can't the comma be implicitly added by the `+' after the property name? > > > > > > On the one hand, it might have one additional advantage: > > > > > > #+property: var foo="This is a very long text" > > > #+property: var+ "with even more." > > > > I don't think such a construction would be tolerated. I guess you must > > write > > a var name (foo, bar, baz, ...) after the `var+' keyword. > > > > > Would foo be: > > > "This is a very long text with even more" > > > > To be accurate, it would have become: > > > > "This is a very long textwith even more" > > > > if such a concatenation would be implied. > > > > Correct - missing space. > > > > > > > Could one make the "," implicit, if the value follows the > > > > > > x=y > > > > > > style, while otherwise just concatenate the value to the one before? > > > > I guess this is going too far, as Babel is untyped: what about... > > > > #+property: var foo=2 > > #+property: var+ 5 > > > > Does foo become equal to 25? > > > > (I know I exaggerate somehow, but just to show I guess such extensions are > > simply not possible without explicit types). > > > > > You definitely have a point here - so I opt for the implicit "," > > > Cheers, > > Rainer > > But, if not equal to 25, what would be expected? An error, ...? > > > > Best regards, > > Seb > > > > -- > > Sebastien Vauban > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > [2 <text/html; ISO-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>] >
