Re: did behaviour of RET change again?

[Greg Minshall]

Tom,

> The other reason I think this is a good idea is because I have been
> working on a formal grammar for the org syntax, and everything would
> be SO much simpler about the implementation after the first pass parse
> if the canonical representation of an Org file did not allow
> significant whitespace (with an exception for plain lists).

possibly i'm misunderstanding, but my sense is that the value of org
adapt indentation doesn't change what you might actually find ("in a
.org file in the wild").  so, whatever its value, your grammar would
have to deal with all cases?

or, and maybe this would make sense, you'd define an "interoperability"
form of .org, that all "wild" .org files could be (programmatically)
converted into, without losing any of their semantics?

(anyway, good luck with that, even with any significant subset of that!)

cheers, Greg