Re: [O] About commit named "Allow multi-line properties to be specified in property blocks"

[Eric Schulte]

I don't understand why the `org-accumulated-properties-alist' solution
seems like a hack, could someone elaborate.  To me that still feels like
the most natural solution.

more below...

>>> 2) "Cumulative properties"?
>>>
>>>    Here is a suggestion: use a syntaxe like
>>>  
>>>    #+var: foo 1
>>
>> There is also "#+bind:", whose purpose is close enough.
>
> Indeed.  Eric, would it be possible to use 
>
> #+bind foo 1 
>
> instead of 
>
> #+property var foo=1
>

No, this would not for subtree-level properties, i.e., in a property
block under a subtree there would be no way to tell if a property is a
#+var:.  I think if this were an approach, a more elegant solution would
be for users to customize the `org-babel-default-header-args' variable
using Emacs' file-local-variable feature -- which is possible now and
may end up being the best solution.

>
>>> 3) Wrapping/folding long #+xxx lines?
>>>
>>>    This is an independant request -- see Robert McIntyre's recent
>>>    question on the list.  The problem is that fill-paragraph on
>>>    long #+xxx lines breaks the line into comment lines, which is 
>>>    wrong.  Filling like this:
>>>
>>>    #+TBLFM: @address@hidden@2$1::@address@hidden@2$2::...::...
>>>           : @address@hidden@2$2::...
>>>           : @address@hidden@2$2::...
>>
>> #+tblfm: ...
>> #+tblfm: ...
>> #+tblfm: ...
>
> Not very elegant, but perhaps more efficient/consistent.
>

I like this solution, especially as I have often struggled with long and
unreadable tblfm lines.  The problem with using this for property lines
would be in the case of

#+property: foo bar
#+property: baz qux

whether the above should be parsed as

  '(("foo" . "bar") ("baz" . "qux"))

or

  '(("foo" . "bar baz qux"))

>>>    But maybe generalizing the #+begin_xxx syntax for *all* #+xxx
>>>    keywords.  This would make the current
>>>    org-internals-oriented/content-oriented difference between #+xxx
>>>    and #+begin_xxx obsolete
>>
>> I suggest to avoid such a thing. Here are a few, more or less valid,
>> reasons:
>>
>>   - That distinction is useful for the user (clear separation between
>>     contents and Org control).
>>   - It would penalize usage of special blocks.
>>   - The need is localized to very few keywords: it isn't worth the added
>>     complexity.
>>   - It would be ugly: no more nice stacking of keywords, but a mix of
>>     blocks and keywords, and blocks on top of blocks... Org syntax may
>>     not be the prettiest ever, it doesn't deserve that.
>>   - It would be a real pain to parse.
>
> Well, I agree with most of the reasons.  Glad you stated them clearly.
>

Yes, I agree some of the above are very motivating.

>
>>>    but this would spare us the cost of new syntax.
>>
>> On the contrary, creating a block for each keyword would mean a lot of
>> new syntax.
>>
>> We currently have 8 types of blocks (not counting dynamic blocks, whose
>> syntax is a bit different), all requiring to be parsed differently:
>>
>>   1. Center blocks,
>>   2. Comment blocks,
>>   3. Example blocks,
>>   4. Export blocks,
>>   5. Quote blocks,
>>   6. Special blocks,
>>   7. Src blocks,
>>   8. Verse blocks.
>
> I'm not sure what do you mean by "requiring to be parsed differently".
> Can you explain it?  I understand they should be treated differently by
> the exporters, but I don't understand why they would need to be parsed
> differently.
>

I also wouldn't think of this as new syntax, I don't see 8 rules for the
8 types above but rather one rule along the lines of #+begin_SOMETHING
where the SOMETHING can be anything.

Best -- Eric

>
> My idea was to avoid parsing both #+html and #+begin_html.  And that
> #+begin_xxx syntax is already available for folding, which is a feature 
> we might want for #+text and keywords like that.
>
> I would suggest this rule: #+begin_ is always for _content_
> while #+keyword is always for internals that are removed when 
> exporting.  #+text, #+html, #+LaTeX are a few exception I can
> think of.
>
> Best,

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/