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

[Darlan Cavalcante Moreira]

I liked this suggestion. In a sense, it is similar to the "inherit" keyword
I had suggested before, but now the "keyword" (the plus sign) is part of
the variable name. 

But the reason I really liked it is because it is clear to understand. One
can compare it to the "+=" operator some languages have. That is, we can 
understand `:var: bar=2` as var="bar=2" and `:var+: bar=2` as
var+="bar=2".`

--
Darlan

At Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:02:43 +0100, Rainer M Krug <address@hidden>
wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Eric Schulte <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > One more idea that has occurred to me, it should give all of the
> > functionality which we desire (i.e., the ability for a property value to
> > span multiple lines and to be accumulated at the subtree level), and it
> > should require *no* new syntax.  The only problem is it puts a
> > limitation on possible property names -- namely that they can not end
> > with the + character.
> >
> > The proposal is, when a property name ends in +, the value is appended
> > to the corresponding property, rather than replacing it, so
> >
> >  #+PROPERTY: var   foo=1
> >  #+PROPERTY: var   bar=2
> >
> > results in '(("var" . "bar=2"))
> >
> >  #+PROPERTY: var    foo=1
> >  #+PROPERTY: var+ , bar=2
> >
> > results in '(("var" . "foo=1, bar=2"))
> >
> > This way subtree properties could be used as well, e.g.,
> >
> >  #+PROPERTY: var foo=1
> >
> >  * subtree
> >    :PROPERTIES:
> >    :var+: bar=2
> >    :CUSTOM_ID: something
> >    :END:
> >
> > Just another thought.
> >
> 
> I like that suggestion - it is clear, easy to understand, gives other
> advantages (you can "unset" variables in a subtree - which would be an
> added bonus) and does not require any large changes in org files.
> 
> This suggestion would get my vote.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rainer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Best -- Eric
> >
> > Eric Schulte <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
> UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)
> 
> Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
> Stellenbosch University
> South Africa
> 
> Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
> Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
> Fax (F):       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44
> 
> Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44
> 
> email:      address@hidden
> 
> Skype:      RMkrug