Re: [O] More clocktable breakage

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:

> No, I meant context of application, rather than context in the
> syntactical sense.  Org-element-* deals with syntax, nothing else.
> Whether you need strict syntactical interpretation or something else
> gets decided someplace else.

OK. Then we agree here.

> Whatever it sounds like, what you want in the clocktables example and
> the properties example (and elsewhere) is something that looks, walks
> and talks like a timestamp if you'd put it into the proper context.  In
> each of these places the text that looks like timestamp but isn't
> (org-element says so) will be fed into some machinery that emerges with
> a result that is indistinguishable from what you'd get if that text
> would have been a proper timestamp and then uses that result to do
> whatever it wants to do with it (i.e. most certainly not build up an
> agenda, although it could do that as well).  It uses a bit of Org syntax
> in the improper context to achieve this (and this requires precisely to
> ignore that context or at least check with something more loose than
> org-element).

I also agree, but it seems to contradict what you write below.

> In a comment that timestamp-looking text doesn't have any function, so
> it's in a different category, I must insist.  As I said, I can see
> somebody wanting to have this text be editable like any other timestamp
> also, but it's really the other uses where it's used meta-syntactically
> that I'd like to focus on.

Here, I don't follow you anymore. A timestamp in a comment is "something
that looks, walks and talks like a timestamp if you'd put it into the
proper context", too. So there's no difference with properties or the
clock table.

> One of the differences to text in comments (or generally quoted
> material) is that there is an expectation that this sort of timestamp
> is correct, since they are intended to be input to further processing.

True, but if that timestamps isn't correct, it doesn't "look, walk and
talk" like a timestamp anymore, so this doesn't apply to the above.

Anyway, I think we're digressing. We're talking about design, yet, to
tell the truth, I don't even know anymore what the original, concrete,
problem is really about.

As I asked 5 weeks ago (!), could you provide an ECM demonstrating the
issue so that I can fix it, in the light of our discussion?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou