on Mon Apr 09 2012, Bastien <bzg-AT-gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Dave Abrahams <d...@boostpro.com> writes: > >> 1. I strongly disagree that that would be more useful. It would leave >> the newbie trap and usability bug in place. > > Well, we disagree then :) I think it is useful to have a function that > let everyone (not just newbies) know that some subtrees don't respect > Org's writing conventions.
It would be very useful. Just not /more/ useful. The most useful functionality is the one that just works without any intervention from the user. >> 2. John Wiegley has been working on some code that allows such things to >> be trivially implemented and I'd rather not duplicate / overlap with >> him. John, would you care to push your org-x stuff upstream soon? > > You might also look at org-element.el. Sorry, but I don't want to spend the time on that. I'm trying to get the rules changed so that it isn't so easy to corrupt an org file. I'm not much interested in building a tool to undo corruption. > FYI: Nicolas and I have been discussing about the issue you raised, and > the integration of org-element.el will force us to be clearer about such > cases, which is good. I sincerely hope that when you become clearer about such cases you pick a liberal set of rules that isn't so error-prone. The ideas that I can't just hit return after a headline and start typing a body, and that I'll be nagged about misplaced SCHEDULED: lines, are both very unappealing. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
