Re: [O] [PARSER] Why not add properties to type 'org-data'?

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

Hello,

> Thorsten Jolitz <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Wouldn't it make sense to replace 
>>
>> ,----------------------------------------------
>> | (org-data nil (section (:begin 1 :end 52 ...)))
>> `----------------------------------------------
>>
>> with something like
>>
>> ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> | (org-data (:id-or-name file001 :input-file /my/file.org :author me :date
>> | 01-01-2013 :description my planning data) (section (:begin 1 :end 52
>> | ...)))
>> `-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ?
>
> This is way beyond parser's attributions. For example, getting the right
> date means that every SETUPFILE keyword should be inspected. INCLUDE
> keywords too. And some macros could get expanded in the process.
>
> Also keep in mind that some keywords, e.g. DESCRIPTION, are defined and
> made special at the export framework level (see
> `org-export-options-alist'). There are just regular keywords to the
> parser. IOW, for the parser, there is no difference between
>
>   #+DESRCIPTION: something
>
> and
>
>   #+FOO: something
>
> At one point, I thought about combining parse tree and information
> channel, much like what you're suggesting, but in `ox.el'. It would give
> something like an "Org closure" wrapping both contents and environment
> together.
>
> But I discarded that idea, as it was very artificial: the minute the
> closure was created, it was splitted again so it could get processed.

OK, I do like the separation of parse tree and communication channel in
the exporter, and I can use the exporter to extract and put the
necessary 'org-data' DB object attributes, at the very least the file
name or a unique ID.

But sometimes, when only the parse-tree is needed, not the exporter
framework, it would indeed be useful if that highest level element the
others refer to as parent (org-data) would have some kind of unique
name/id.

What would be the cost of introducing just one single unique attribute
like:

,-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| (org-data (:input-file /my/file.org) (section (:begin 1 :end 52 ...)))
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------

or 

,-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| (org-data (:ID 08AF34b12) (section (:begin 1 :end 52 ...)))
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------

to make different parse trees distinguishable (and associated to the
parsed file)?

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten