[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [PATCH] Do not indent option keywords
From: |
Carsten Dominik |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [PATCH] Do not indent option keywords |
Date: |
Fri, 10 May 2013 19:57:10 +0200 |
On 10.5.2013, at 08:39, Achim Gratz <address@hidden> wrote:
> Carsten Dominik writes:
>> by decoration you mean font-lock support?
>
> Yes, but I also don't think these should ever become indented in the
> first place. That's debatable of course, the syntax as defined by
> org-element does not require this IIRC.
Well, which are the ones you think should never become indented? OPTIONS,
TITLE, of maybe you mean the whole suite of keywords?
I sometimes put the setup below a major headline "* setup" or so, to make them
hide away and give the buffer a clean look. Depending on indentation setting
it then does make some sense to allow indentation. So I think the font-lock
fix is more important than the indentation one.
Please read on below.
>
>> Maybe this would be a better fix:
>>
>> Modified lisp/org.el
>> diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el
>> index 745fb82..43df094 100644
>> --- a/lisp/org.el
>> +++ b/lisp/org.el
>> @@ -5867,7 +5867,8 @@ by a #."
>> ((or (equal dc1 "+results")
>> (member dc1 '("+begin:" "+end:" "+caption:" "+label:"
>> "+orgtbl:" "+tblfm:" "+tblname:" "+results:"
>> - "+call:" "+header:" "+headers:" "+name:"))
>> + "+call:" "+header:" "+headers:" "+name:"
>> + "+options:"))
>> (and (match-end 4) (equal dc3 "+attr")))
>> (add-text-properties
>> beg (match-end 0)
>
> Sure, that helps too and has certainly less potential for controversy.
>
> I think we should make an effort to shift most if not all the regex
> stuff in org.el into org-element. There's far too much duplication with
> subtle differences sprinkled all over the place to get match data to
> work with and it's almost hopeless to try and find all such uses for a
> single element.
What do you mean? Do you meant to use the org-elemnt parser
and base also font-lock on it? Or do you mean all the definitions
of regexp constants. This sounds desirable - but it also sounds
like an extremely daunting task with possibilities for problems
in side effects of regexp matching that will be difficult to find
and might only show after a long time. I guess we could start
such a process one regexp at a time.
- Carsten