[Orgmode] Re: Release 7.02

[Sébastien Vauban]

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?


> 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.

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sébastien Vauban