[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Fwd: comment lines inside org tables

From: Nicolas Goaziou
Subject: Re: [O] Fwd: comment lines inside org tables
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 18:29:16 +0200


"Rolf Sander (MPI)" <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm sorry to say this but this email list has been the most
> disappointing experience for me. I asked a simple question and even
> provided the code for a possible solution. The answers I received
> included phrases like "can of worms", "little benefit" and "barely
> scratching the surface of the problem".

I think that blaming the whole list is uncalled for. You got helpful
answers from other persons than me, yet you only quote parts of my

> And now you even wrote:


>> I already answered to that question, but you discarded my answer.
> This is not true! You did not answer my question! Without testing, you
> just _speculated_ that you expect problems with formulas and export.

What makes you think I speculated anything? I tried to show you the weak
spots of your model.

> So I tested it myself. In my tests I did _not_ experience any problems
> with formulas and export. Why do you claim that I discarded your
> answer?

Exhibiting one example confirming a theory doesn't validate it.

Anyway, you can do the following with your patch:

 - Move point to your "comment row"
 - M-: (org-element-property :type (org-element-at-point))

If you get `rule', by all means, Org sees your row as a standard table
rule. This is not transparent; this is /not/ a comment. You just created
a degenerate syntax for table rules.

Note that this may be what you really want, but this is not equivalent
to the initial example you gave:

  | animal | size  | number |
  | gnus   | big   |      3 |
  # don't forget to add elephants here:
  | gnats  | small |   1000 |

If such thing existed, the "gnus" and "gnats" rows wouldn't be separated
by a rule, e.g., in export, because Org removes such lines prior to
starting the export process. Another example is the following:

  | animal | size  | number |
  |-/ whatever
  | gnus   | big   |      3 |
  | gnats  | small |   1000 |

In this case, you are creating a table header, so this is not
transparent either. I could also add an example where an additional rule
has an impact on formulas (@address@hidden could have a different meaning
depending on the presence or not of another rule).

All in all, I think your problem is ill-defined. You wanted comment
rows, but you didn't specify how it should behave in various situations
involving tables. I stand on my ground : generic comment rows are
difficult to implement and "a can of worms".

Allowing text within a table rule is easier to achieve, as you proved,
but it feels very hackish and limited in use. What if I want to
introduce comments without creating a visible rule in the table? Do
I need yet another syntax?

> I still think orgmode is great code and I would have loved to
> participate. However, given the way that you treat me here,

I don't treat you in any way. I just suggested your idea was wrong.
I understand this can be frustrating. I would be frustrated too.


Nicolas Goaziou

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]