[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Fix regex for determining image width from attribute

From: Matt Huszagh
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix regex for determining image width from attribute
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 18:06:16 -0800

Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks for your thoughtful deliberation on this.

No worries, and thanks for continuing to engage with it.

>> The other consideration is if we take the first point as a given (that
>> org should use width directives for other backends), should it also
>> attempt to interpret directives that are ambiguous? In this case, do we
>> interpret 1.2 as 1.2? If  could only be ,
>> I’d be inclined to agree that this is logical. I also understand the
>> case for , though this is slightly less clear. But, what if
>> someone used 1.2? Seems a bit unusual I know, but maybe
>> someone would want this. Again, I don’t think we should guess if there’s
>> a chance we could be wrong.
> I feel this very much depends on how bad “guessing wrong” is, and as 
> previously
> discussed, since it’s rather easy to correct or set `org-image-actual-width' 
> to
> prevent this, I’m not sure it warrants being terribly concerned about.

I think the problem here is that `org-image-actual-width` is essentially
a global solution to a potentially local problem. I can't set
`org-image-actual-width` to nil for just one image.

> Thanks for continuing with this. Moving forward, I think it would be best to:
> ⁃ Make a patch just for prioritising `#+attr_org'
> ⁃ Make a patch just improving the regex (before or after the `#+attr_org' 
> patch)
> ⁃ Discuss changing the behaviour of image previews separately later / in 
> another
>   thread, linking to this thread when doing so.
> How does that sound?

Yep, sounds good.

> Lastly, a comment on your documentation patch from earlier. I like the changes
> to `org-image-actual-width', however I think you’ve been over-eager with 
> scrapping
> the current docstring for `org-display-inline-image--width'. Since the 
> behaviour
> is implemented there, I think it should at a minimum be documented there.
> The docstring for a function referring to a variable’s documentation for how 
> it’s
> handled by the function seems a bit weird.

I was torn on this as well. However, I ended up feeling that it would be
worse to duplicate the same information in two places. This requires
updating the information in two places instead of one, and, worse, the
documentation could easily diverge. Because the function isn't
public-facing, but the variable very much is, I felt it better just to
include the documentation for the variable.

I also don't think removing the documentation from the function is that
bad. A lot of what that function does is to follow what the variable
tells it to do. Again, the function won't be called directly by an
end-user, so requiring that the developer refer to other documentation
for understanding implementation details seems reasonable. Finally,
there are numerous functions in org that tell you to refer to
documentation elsewhere (especially defcustoms) for further information.

Anyway, I still feel that the earlier patch (before regex changes is the
right one). But, if you want me to revert the documentation removal from
the function I will.


reply via email to

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