Re: [O] Easy Template does not expand

And so it begins.

Re: [O] [RFC] Dog food, anyone?

This is excellent. I love that, as Nicolas says, we're eating our own dog food. Perhaps this will put to rest the doubts expressed on Emacs-Devel a year or two ago in the thread about replacing TeXinfo as to whether Org mode was up to the task.

Re: [O] [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand templates thru e.g. "

Tim Cross writes: [Snip] Personally, I feel the new version should be the default and we should provide an easy way to re-enable the old version for those who wish to continue with what they are use to. We already have this. The problem, as you say, is how we communicate this to existi

Re: [O] [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand templates thru e.g. "

Richard Lawrence writes: Jon Snader writes: I use the it enabled. I don't want to have to deal with a menu and its more complicated calling sequence I feel the same! Please don't disable You can make the case that it doesn't really matter because all that'

[O] [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand templates thru e.g. "

I use the

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:+ extractfun comparefun tempfun extract-string-p)EXTRACT-STRING-P, and possibly TEMPFUN, are bound too early. See below.I moved EXTRACT-STRING-P to a lower let but TEMPFUN has to be available to the call to sort so I left i

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> As I said above, you’ve convinced me that ?f ?F is the right solution. > > Fair enough. Let's settle on that, then. Here is the new patch. It extends org-table-sort-lines to allow a user to specify custom extraction and comparison func

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 6:25 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Jon Snader writes: >> Really, this doesn’t matter because I was >> merely commenting on why (prompt . comparison) isn’t enough. Of >> course, you could roll any special extraction functionality into th

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 13, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > I don't think it needs to vary. As I suggested already, we can use cells > contents (in the appropriate column) as trimmed strings. So, it could be > built-in. > > Do you see any downside to it? Well, I’m just going by what happens now. I

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > `org-do-sort' is an internal function, which isn't meant to be used > publicly. It really should be named `org-table--do-sort' and be moved > within "org-table.el". OTOH, we can extend `org-table-sort-lines' to > allow custom sorting funct

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > I think my proposal is simpler: add ?f and ?F to built-in options, in > which case user is prompted for a custom sorting function (in your case, > `org-ip-lessp'). It is also more consistent with `org-sort-list’. The problem with that solu

Re: [O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > However I think the feature implemented is too specific. Instead, > `org-do-sort' could provide a way to pass an arbitrary predicate, > like ?f and ?F in `org-sort-list'. > > WDYT? Actually, when I originally looked at org-do-sort, my fir

[O] Patch to implement sorting Org tables by IP address

There is currently no easy way to sort an Org table by IP address. The only method I could find involves selecting the IP addresses in a rectangle and piping them to sort with a complicated sort recipe. Even though I am not a system administrator, I sometimes need to maintain tables that I’d lik