Hello, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't see what is clumsy with affiliated keywords. > > Well, you write the arguments before starting the source block, getting > everything wardbacks (and I don't think that's easier to parse, but you > would know better(*)). I think you're mixing src blocks and Babel. A src block contains, fontifies and allows to edit source code. Babel arguments (or caption, or name) are meta-data that applies to the whole src block element, not to its contents. > Last but not least I can never remember if any of the "#+" stuff is > supposed to end with a ":" Affiliated keywords all do. If one doesn't, it's a bug. > and whether it wants another ":" in front of the arguments or not. That's another topic, and I agree that, at one point or another, we'll have to unify the way parameters are written. IMO, Babel usage is a good standard. > (*) Reminds me I'll have to try what happens if I write header > arguments that are detached from the source block. Devious, I know, > but the manual does not really specify anything. But Org elements does. Affiliated keywords must be attached to their relative element. > If you look carefully, that source block above does not contain a > drawer. It has a (hypothetical) associated multiline header argument > that happens to look and feel like a drawer. Then it's a duck. >> Though, drawers can contain src-blocks. > > Is there any specification that they must fully contain them? You may want to read comments in org-element.el. I also posted some explanations when I announced the library. > Anyway, that was just an idea and if nobody likes it, that's fine with > me, too. I just wanted to let you know that the idea of putting "quasi-drawers" within a src-block is against the model described by the current parser. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
