Hello,
"Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf-genee64ty+gs+fvcfc7...@public.gmane.org> writes: > Hi Nicolas, > > Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> Bastien <bzg-mXXj517/z...@public.gmane.org> writes: >>> François Pinard <pinard-crdztm1onbswkkpyngo...@public.gmane.org> writes: >>>> If macros are there to stay in Org, it might be worth documenting a more >>>> complete specification about how to define and use them. >>> >>> I'd welcome some improvement of the manual wrt macros -- any taker? >> >> Before documenting anything, we should first define them clearly. > > I think you're right here, seen the latest threads on this. > >> That is, we can define them through documentation, but we shouldn't write >> documentation by looking at their current implementation. >> >> Should macros be allowed anywhere (which means that the user can shoot >> himself in the foot) or should their expansion happen in a protected >> environment (thus limiting their power)? > > If I had to choose, I would opt for the first case... > >> In the first case, can macros generate inline Babel code, that will be >> executed before export? > > ... where macros would be pre-processed "à la M4" (or C preprocessing): > replacing some keyword with some other expression. > >> In the second case, what types of elements are allowed in the protected >> environment? >> >> Also, do we want to allow multiples macros definitions to stack up? I.e. >> >> #+MACRO: a-macro First line of the macro. >> #+MACRO: a-macro Second line of the macro. >> >> If so, do we allow blank lines in them, meaning they can break document >> structure even more? >> >> Can the macros be nested? >> >> Since macros arguments are comma-separated, how do one insert commas >> within an argument? >> >> Are newline characters allowed in arguments? If not, what else is >> forbidden there? >> >> There are probably other questions, but it should be a good start for >> a correct implementation. > > An extra question is: the "replacing expression" of a macro, must it be pure > text, or can it be anything (such as code that will be interpreted, in a > further pass, by some back-end)? The first option implies that the expression are inserted in the Org buffer before being parsed. This is mostly what happens in the current exporter. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
