Ihor Radchenko writes:
> I think we need to use rewrite rule here in addition to moving the file.
> If we simply move the file, old links will be broken.
Done now, thanks.
--
Bastien
Bastien writes:
> A few suggestions:
>
> - Make it a description of the syntax of the latest stable Org. (For
> now let's consider 9.6 to be the latest stable as we are working on
> releasing it soon.) Perhaps this is already the case and I missed
> it?
Yes, it should be consistent with
Bastien writes:
> - Promote the page to orgmode.org/worg/org-syntax.html: the /dev/ path
> in the current URL makes it read like it is the syntax for the "dev"
> version.
I think we need to use rewrite rule here in addition to moving the file.
If we simply move the file, old links will be br
I also want to chip in with a thank-you for the org syntax specification page.
As someone who's working on a custom org exporter, this is a very useful
resource for finding out how elements are structured within org-mode.
Thanks,
Rohit
Hi Timothy,
I'm late to the party, but *thanks* for these important improvements
on the https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html page!
A few suggestions:
- Make it a description of the syntax of the latest stable Org. (For
now let's consider 9.6 to be the latest stable as we are working o
Tom Gillespie writes:
> 3. When I say grammar in this context I mean specifically an eBNF that
>generates a LALR(1) or LR(1) parser. This is narrower than the
>definition used in the document, which includes things that have to
>be implemented in the tokenizer, or in a pass after the
Hi Ihor,
Thank you very much for the detailed responses. Let me start with
some context.
1. A number of the comments that I made fall into the brainstorming
category, so they don't need to make their way into the document at
this time. I agree that it is critical for this document to captu
Tom Gillespie writes:
> Extremely in favor of removing switches. There are so many better ways
> to do this now that aren't like some eldritch unix horror crawling up
> out of the abyss and into the eBNF :)
I also agree that switches and $$-style equations may be deprecated.
We can
1. Do not men
Hi Timothy,
I have attached a patch with some modifications and a bunch of
comments (as footnotes). More replies in line. Thank you for all your
work on this!
Tom
> Marking this as depreciated would have no effect on Org’s current behaviour,
> but we could:
>
> Mark as depreciated now-ish
> A
Hi,
The new document seems much clearer. It makes a nice complement to the
manual and we should definitely lose the (draft). Thank you Timothy
for the work.
Lastly, having spent a while looking at the syntax, I’m wondering if
we should take this opportunity to mark some of the syntactic element
10 matches
Mail list logo
