Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes: > > For most commands, the first literal syntactic interpretation is the > only relevant context of interaction: e.g., it would not make sense to > try updating a tag outside of a headline (i.e. outside of where a tag > is a tag, from the parser's view.) > > For some commands, another higher context can also be relevant: e.g., > when the point is on a heading and the user hit C-c C-o, Org needs to > know whether we are on a link (in this case it will open the link). If > not, it checks for a higher context: when we are on a heading, it will > look for multiple links and prompt the user for which one to open. > > (A generalization of this "links-in-a-heading" behavior for something > like "links-in-a-paragraph", as suggested by Gustav, is a good idea.)
Is the question here perhaps a simple one of refactoring? Nicolas is doing amazing work at making org file parsing more systematic, precise, and predictable. (Thank you!) And I agree with him that a function named org-open-link-at-point should, for the sake of precision and consistency, only open a link at the point. I also agree that such a function should do nothing in the context of a comment, which should simply be a string. FWIW, it seems to me that there are still several places in the source code that could be cleaned up in this way. For instance, org-mode code examples designated for export have unwanted effects in the agenda. Try putting this in an agenda file... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- * An example : * Watch me : <2014-03-03 Mon 9:00> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- The problem, it seems to me, is that org-open-at-point is ambiguously named. The last bit, "at-point", suggests a precise scope, but the beginning "org-open" implies a broad, fuzzy scope (i.e., it is not clear what is being opened). The problem is that org-open-at-point doubles as a meta function and a more precise function to open links at the point --- i.e., it implements within itself all the internals this more precise task. Org, of course, has a lot of helpful "dwim" functions (e.g., org-meta-return, org-cycle, etc.). I would not want to lose these. As Bastien suggested, these functions are precisely what make org-mode so easy and intuitive to use. However, org has historically implemented many of its internals in an ad-hoc fashion within very large functions. This has led to some redundancy and opacity. This is especially true for a function like org-open-at-point, which is both precise and broad. This is where org-mode stands a lot to gain from refactoring the code base around Nicolas's parser. My view is that precision and usability need not be mutually exclusive. Might we have a bunch of precise, modular functions that rely on the new parser? E.g., something like org-open-link-at-point. This would do exactly what it says -- i.e., open a link if one is at the point. Then, on top of these function s we could rebuild fuzzier "meta" and "dwim" functions (e.g., org-open-links-in-paragraph, org-open-links-in-entry, org-meta-open, org-open-at-point,... whatever). In short, I am excited by the potential that the parser provides to make the code base more transparent, granular, and precise. Matt
