Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated

[Bastien]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

>> That said, Org syntax is not the only valid representation of an
>> org-mode buffer.
>
> It should be, or the whole concept is moot. If "Org syntax" is only
> valid during export, if fontification interprets Org differently, if
> users see Org differently too, there is no point in defining a syntax.
> Just let everyone implement its own private Org.

You are pushing things to the extreme.

Even if the syntax is used for 57% of the functions, there is a point
in defining one, and there would be no point for all users to define
their own.

>> It is the only useful one when exporting a buffer to a certain format,
>> because we need to map the structure of the original contents to the
>> structure of the target one.
>
> Again, this will not work if we do not agree on the structure. This will
> raise questions like "How come that my document is exported this way,
> even though I interpret it that way?".

We agree here: a proper syntax is needed for exporting.

>> But another representation of an org-mode buffer is the one that
>> a user has in mind when manipulating it, part of this representation
>> depends on Org syntax, part of it depends on Emacs general facilities.
>>
>> For example, Emacs and the user have a notion of `end-of-line', but
>> Org syntax does not.  Org syntax says whitespaces after an object
>> belong to the object but my immediate representation says they do not.
>> Or we do have a notion of visual indentation (with org-indent-mode
>> turned on), but this does not correspond to any real content, and /a
>> fortiori/ to an Org syntactic element, since this is just visual
>> sugar.
>
> You are mixing subjects here. For example, `org-end-of-line' is backed
> up with Elements already. This has nothing to do with Org syntax.

I'm sorry you don't see the point: `org-end-of-line' being backed by
Org syntax does not mean "the end of a line" has a meaning for the Org
parser.  My point is: it does not have a meaning for the parser while
is has one for the user.  This illustrates the fact there are several
representations, which I need for my reasoning: if there was a unique
representation, there would be no point in trying to balance several
of them when defining features.

>> There is a minimalistic view of Org as the combination of a syntax and
>> a set of features to manipulate this syntax.  There is a maximalistic
>> view of Org as a syntax, a set of features to manipulate it, and a set
>> of Emacs facilities to manipulate the mental representation of an Org
>> buffer, which will *never* be the same than the parser representation.
>
> Of course, but the "maximalistic" view can only be a superset of the
> "minimalistic" one. The former can see more than the latter, but it
> cannot disagree on what the latter sees.

Ideally, yes.

>> But Org is no library: it's the Emacs way to manipulate Org files.
>
> And Org files are expressed in an Org format. Org syntax tries to define
> it.

Agreed.

>> Hence the case for links in comment, for example: the user read them
>> as links, there is no value in preventing the users to open them with
>> C-c C-o, and it is convenient to allow them to do so.
>
> Sorry, this is not convenient. This is just nonsense.

Let's ping the users about this particular nonsense.

> For example, Org prevents a user from inserting a footnote reference in
> a comment (for good reasons), but links should be allowed? Can't every
> part of Org agree?
>
> AFAICT, a comment is a comment

Er.. shall I quote Alice in Wonderland here?

You seem to consider Org comments as comments in programming languages.
But Org is not a programming language, it is used for any kind of text.

> IMO, there is a single representation for the Org format, and it must be
> defined clearly. Org syntax is an attempt to do so (but I never said it
> was definitive) and Org elements implements it.
>
> I started to work on the parser because it was high time to give Org
> one. From the beginning, I wanted all core functions to rely on it, for
> reasons I already explained. And for the same reasons, anything less is
> not worthy, as it would become yet another part of Org interpreting Org
> its own way. I never pretended to think or act otherwise.

This is not a all-or-nothing issue, and all-or-less is still different
than all-or-nothing.

> Some users apparently don't want a parser, i.e. a global consistent
> definition of Org syntax, for reasons that I cannot understand.

Nobody ever said anything coming close to that.

> So, there is no middle path.

I can see plenty of them!

> Either the project continues towards its goal, or it stops
> here. Obviously, I'd rather have the maintainer's opinion on this.

Yes.  In the meantime, other users' voices can help us step back and
see things differently.

-- 
 Bastien