Re: [O] Some projects

[Rasmus]

Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:

> Right, I'd forgotten the distinction. I really only use orgstruct for
> plain/numbered list editing (and I guess the occasional table), and
> filling/indentation is pretty key there.

AFAIK, this doesn't work in commented lines (e.g., when using orgstruct
with init.el).

>> I think OrgStruct may be redefined as an outline minor mode with Org
>> bindings. This is very different from Org. Even indentation and filling
>> should be new functions since Org's recognizes context that doesn't make
>> sense in OrgStruct.
>
> Would that mean that lists and tables wouldn't be supported? 

ATM tables are supported via orgstruct++-mode, though at list basic list
support is provided by orgstruct-mode.

> The unfortunate thing about tabulated list mode, which I otherwise
> really like, isn't able to show multi-line list items. That really
> crimps its usefulness in showing footnotes and annotations, since you
> can only see the first line.  Bummer.

Did you open a bug for this?

>>> These new features aside, is there any need to do any fundamental
>>> refactoring? I mostly mean altering existing Org libraries to use the
>>> element framework, stuff like that...
>>
>> Of course. Refactoring (e.g., replacing `setq' with `let'), adding code
>> comments, tests, using Element where applicable is always good. 
>
> Okay. I thought there might be some big chunk of Org that needed to be
> shifted over on top of elements.

There’s plenty of stuff to refactor in org.el, org-agenda.el etc.

Rasmus

-- 
However beautiful the theory, you should occasionally look at the evidence