[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks" |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:24:04 +0100 |
Hello,
Eric Schulte <address@hidden> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Well, what about:
>>
>> #+property: :var foo=1
>> #+property: :var bar=2
>> #+property: :var baz=3
>> #+property: :var qux=4
> Unfortunately this won't work, the final value of the "var" property
> will be "qux=4" rather than "foo=1, bar=2, baz=3, qux=4".
I know that it won't work, as "#+begin_property" didn't work before you
introduced it. The idea is to make that work instead (with or without
the colons in front of "var").
> I would say that the block is defining an keyword, but yes, I suppose
> we've never had a multi-line keyword definition structure.
I differentiate keywords and blocks from their usage. As such, blocks
are not defining a keyword. They're not even in the same league.
> Along these lines I would also like to allow TBLFM lines to be broken
> over multiple lines, as I often find myself right-scrolling in a buffer
> to find equations in large spreadsheets. I wonder if there would be a
> general solution to allow *all* #keyword+ lines to have a block
> equivalent.
The solution I implemented in my document on Org syntax is to create two
keyword's families: cumulative and dual.
Belonging to the first one means a keyword accumulates its values on
multiple calls instead of replacing them. That's how I parse
"#+headers:" or "#+attr_latex" lines, for example. The second one allows
the keyword to have a secondary, optional, value, in square brackets.
This is useful for keywords like "#+results:", which can include an hash
value like "#+results[hash-string]: keyword-value".
Typically, what is required here is to add "#+property:" to the
cumulative family. Thus,
#+property: var foo=1
#+property: var bar=2
is exactly the same as #+property: var foo=1 var bar=2.
Also, make sure var assignations accumulate too.
> I don't know how #+text: works, but with #+header: the order of the
> blocks is not important, i.e.,
>
> #+headers: :var a=1
> #+headers: :cache a=2
>
> is equal to
>
> #+headers: :cache a=2
> #+headers: :var a=1
>
> but the same is not true for
>
> #+PROPERTY: var foo=1,
> #+PROPERTY+: bar=2
>
> and
>
> #+PROPERTY+: bar=2
> #+PROPERTY: var foo=1,
Because, again, "#+property+:" isn't a great idea. Here, "#+headers:"
accumulates its values. Make the same for "#+property:" and we're all
set.
>> It is desirable to have a logic behind syntax, and to always refer to
>> it. Thus, is is desirable to separate syntax used for contents from
>> syntax used for Org control. It's very different from "things on
>> a single line vs things on multiple lines".
> Sure, but to play devils (or my own) advocate, I would say that
> simplicity is important and "blocks for multi-line content" is a simpler
> rule than "blocks for formatting of multi-line content, and for naming
> multi-line data", the second being the case with code and example
> blocks.
What? Blocks do not name anything. In the case of code and example
blocks, you specify Org how to format/understand the contents, like any
other block. You use "#+name:" to name them.
Again, the rule is simple: blocks are directly related to contents,
keywords aren't. Corollary is: no block with only options and no
contents.
> My goal here is to find the most natural solution which conforms to
> Org-modes design as well as possible, I just don't know what that
> would be...
We share the same goal.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks",
Nicolas Goaziou <=
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Nicolas Goaziou, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Eric Schulte, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Nicolas Goaziou, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Eric Schulte, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Christian Moe, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Eric Schulte, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Christian Moe, 2011/11/01
- Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks", Eric Schulte, 2011/11/01