emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Release 7.02


From: Carsten Dominik
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Re: Release 7.02
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:48:35 +0200


On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Sébastien Vauban wrote:

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Dominik wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Sébastien Vauban wrote:
Carsten Dominik wrote:
Due to changes made to lists, it is no longer possible to have a sublist, some text and then another sublist while still in the same top- level list
item, like in the following situation:

- Some list
  + A first sublist
  + of two elements

  A text belonging to the top-level list

  + Then another sublist
  + and a second element in it
- End of main list

Basically, it means that this entry for this entry (about Org Babel) from an old file of mine (update this morning) does not publish anymore the same
way:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* How to view the results

- =C-c C-v C-v= (or =C-c C-v v=) -- View the expanded body of a code block.

- =C-c C-v C-z= -- Switch to the *session* of the current code block (first,
you need to add =:session= to it).

Use =C-u C-c C-v C-z= to bring up the session with the input variable
pre-loaded.

=C-c C-v z= (=org-babel-switch-to-session-with-code=) is a variant of =C-c C-v C-z= (=org-babel-switch-to-session=): instead of switching to the
session buffer, it splits the window between:

+ the session buffer, and
+ a language major-mode edit buffer for the code block in question.

This can be convenient for using language major mode for interacting with
the session buffer.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The last sentence is *not* considered part of the second element of the
first list.

Although I've seen similar constructs in many, many documents, does anyone know enough rules of style to tell me if this is a wrong way to write
things down? Or, does some possibility still exist to support this
seamlessly?

It is not that this would be bad style. In fact I do miss this kind of structure as well, and accepting loosing it was the biggest argument against
Nicolas' change.

Does that mean that we must admit this will stay like that forever, or will
one try to look and see if it's possible to make that extension?

I am not against it if it can be done in a clean way that is in keeping with the structure and philosophy Nicolas has implemented.

I think this will mean that we would not use just indentation to define this,
but some explicit piece of syntax.

Patches and discussions about this will always be welcome, no need to close any door for good.




However, the trade was for much greater stability and consistency of plain lists, Nicolas has done some great work here. Another issue was that the LaTeX exporter never had any support for these structures, so that was
inconsistent for a long time.

I know that Bastien told he would fix it when he would have time. So, that did
not seem to be an impossible wish.

Trust me, it is not something I can do in a day or two, or I would have done it a long time ago. I don't know why Bastien has never done it. bastien, did you ever try?

- Carsten




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]