Re: [O] [ANN] BREAKING CHANGE -- removing #+BABEL file-wide property lines

[Nick Dokos]

Eric Schulte <address@hidden> wrote:

> My concerns with respect to a property drawer solution are two fold.
> 
> 1) In the same way that #+PROPERTY: assumes its value will live on a
>    single line, property drawers assume that their values will live on a
>    single line.  I don't see how it will be easier to fold multi-line
>    properties into drawers than outside of drawers.
> 
> 2) It is not possible to specify file-wide properties with drawers,
>    unlike with property lines.
> 
> Thanks -- Eric
> 

I felt uneasy about #+begin_property, but I could not articulate
my unease until first Nicolas and then Samuel expressed some of their
concerns.

But it seemed to me from the beginning that properties were *not* the
right fit for babel whole-file args and I'm more convinced than ever
that this is the *wrong* direction: it conflates different concepts
and it forces changes in a well established area in order to satisfy
the concerns of the other area.

Can we please back off this path? The changes are big, they affect
users' everyday work and it is not clear where they are going to end up.
Let's revert the changes to master, establish a branch, and do all this
experimentation in a branch. When it is thoroughly cooked to most
people's satisfaction, it can be merged into master. That way, people
can continue their daily work, without having to worry about changing
their files to satisfy the new changes.

Git provided exceptionally flexible branching: let's use it.

My two cents,
Nick

> Samuel Wales <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Properties can be specified in the properties drawer.  But
> > multiple-line ones cannot at present (at least not without serializing the 
> > way
> > multiple-line macros are serialized).
> >
> > Therefore you propose new syntax for multiple-line properties.
> >
> > I propose that allowing the properties drawer to handle multiple-line
> > properties might have 3 advantages over adding block syntax.
> >
> > 1: If you want a single-line property, you have a choice.  If you want
> > a multiple-line
> > property, you have to use a block.  That seems inconsistent.
> >
> > 2: Some people would probably have use for multiple-line properties, such
> > as in org-contacts.  Doesn't have to be Babel.  People are used to the
> > properties drawer.  Also, external parsers are.
> >
> > 3: Nic objects to blocks without discussing them first.
> >
> > Perhaps upgrading properties drawer will satisfy that objection /and/ be
> > consistent /and/ allow further uses in Org.
> >
> > This all presumes we're sticking with properties for Babel.
> >
> > Samuel
> >
> > -- 
> > The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
> > ===
> > Bigotry against people with serious diseases is still bigotry.
> 
> -- 
> Eric Schulte
> http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
>