[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties
From: |
Eric Abrahamsen |
Subject: |
Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:44:05 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
Mark Edgington <address@hidden> writes:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>>
>> It looks like a groundswell for remove-andor-promote tags for headlines,
>> but for the sake of argument let me propose the use of blocks. It seems
>> to me that something like a "generic block" (a block that does nothing
>> but delete its begin/end delimiters on export) fits the use-case better:
>>
>
> Consider the following:
>
> * Test
>
> #+begin_block abc
> * test2
> #+begin_block def
> * test3
> ** test4
> #+end_block
>
> ** test5
> #+end_block
FWIW, I think the above example is actually illegal Org syntax -- it's
going to result in breakage in many ways, not just this case.
> Some remarks on this, and on blocks vs. headlines:
>
> - For me, the above example ends up being indented very poorly with
> org-indent-mode active. Also folding the nested headlines swallows up the
> end-block lines.
>
> - I find that it's difficult to identify what belongs to what block, and the
> need to have both start and end lines to delineate the blocks is a bit more
> noisy and can be a pain to work with (what if I want to remove the "abc
> frame" -- I will need not only to delete the begin line, but also to locate
> where the corresponding end line is, and delete it as well).
>
> - creating a block (manually, at least) requires more effort than creating a
> headline (= more RSI).
>
> - It also may be convenient at times to be able to remove the :promote:,
> etc. tags in order to have the exporter include the grouping as part of the
> exported document's structure.
>
> - Likewise, what if I want to add a :noexport: tag so that all of the
> content is ignored -- easy with headlines, more work to do the same thing
> with a block.
Yup, I don't really have any argument against these above points -- I
think it's mostly a matter of use-case.
The inconvenience of the block approach could easily be remedied with a
few extra functions: something like org-wrap-region-in-block and
org-delete-enclosing-block would probably do it.
But your second two objections are just a matter of a difference in
use-case: you want something more flexible and powerful. My suggestion
is just a lighter-weight alternate if (it's a possibility) the tag-based
approach gets nixed...
E
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, (continued)
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Eric Schulte, 2014/06/15
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/06/16
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Mark Edgington, 2014/06/16
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Eric Schulte, 2014/06/16
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Aaron Ecay, 2014/06/21
- Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Eric Schulte, 2014/06/22
Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties, Eric Abrahamsen, 2014/06/12