[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated
From: |
Bastien |
Subject: |
Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:49:44 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
>> That said, Org syntax is not the only valid representation of an
>> org-mode buffer.
>
> It should be, or the whole concept is moot. If "Org syntax" is only
> valid during export, if fontification interprets Org differently, if
> users see Org differently too, there is no point in defining a syntax.
> Just let everyone implement its own private Org.
You are pushing things to the extreme.
Even if the syntax is used for 57% of the functions, there is a point
in defining one, and there would be no point for all users to define
their own.
>> It is the only useful one when exporting a buffer to a certain format,
>> because we need to map the structure of the original contents to the
>> structure of the target one.
>
> Again, this will not work if we do not agree on the structure. This will
> raise questions like "How come that my document is exported this way,
> even though I interpret it that way?".
We agree here: a proper syntax is needed for exporting.
>> But another representation of an org-mode buffer is the one that
>> a user has in mind when manipulating it, part of this representation
>> depends on Org syntax, part of it depends on Emacs general facilities.
>>
>> For example, Emacs and the user have a notion of `end-of-line', but
>> Org syntax does not. Org syntax says whitespaces after an object
>> belong to the object but my immediate representation says they do not.
>> Or we do have a notion of visual indentation (with org-indent-mode
>> turned on), but this does not correspond to any real content, and /a
>> fortiori/ to an Org syntactic element, since this is just visual
>> sugar.
>
> You are mixing subjects here. For example, `org-end-of-line' is backed
> up with Elements already. This has nothing to do with Org syntax.
I'm sorry you don't see the point: `org-end-of-line' being backed by
Org syntax does not mean "the end of a line" has a meaning for the Org
parser. My point is: it does not have a meaning for the parser while
is has one for the user. This illustrates the fact there are several
representations, which I need for my reasoning: if there was a unique
representation, there would be no point in trying to balance several
of them when defining features.
>> There is a minimalistic view of Org as the combination of a syntax and
>> a set of features to manipulate this syntax. There is a maximalistic
>> view of Org as a syntax, a set of features to manipulate it, and a set
>> of Emacs facilities to manipulate the mental representation of an Org
>> buffer, which will *never* be the same than the parser representation.
>
> Of course, but the "maximalistic" view can only be a superset of the
> "minimalistic" one. The former can see more than the latter, but it
> cannot disagree on what the latter sees.
Ideally, yes.
>> But Org is no library: it's the Emacs way to manipulate Org files.
>
> And Org files are expressed in an Org format. Org syntax tries to define
> it.
Agreed.
>> Hence the case for links in comment, for example: the user read them
>> as links, there is no value in preventing the users to open them with
>> C-c C-o, and it is convenient to allow them to do so.
>
> Sorry, this is not convenient. This is just nonsense.
Let's ping the users about this particular nonsense.
> For example, Org prevents a user from inserting a footnote reference in
> a comment (for good reasons), but links should be allowed? Can't every
> part of Org agree?
>
> AFAICT, a comment is a comment
Er.. shall I quote Alice in Wonderland here?
You seem to consider Org comments as comments in programming languages.
But Org is not a programming language, it is used for any kind of text.
> IMO, there is a single representation for the Org format, and it must be
> defined clearly. Org syntax is an attempt to do so (but I never said it
> was definitive) and Org elements implements it.
>
> I started to work on the parser because it was high time to give Org
> one. From the beginning, I wanted all core functions to rely on it, for
> reasons I already explained. And for the same reasons, anything less is
> not worthy, as it would become yet another part of Org interpreting Org
> its own way. I never pretended to think or act otherwise.
This is not a all-or-nothing issue, and all-or-less is still different
than all-or-nothing.
> Some users apparently don't want a parser, i.e. a global consistent
> definition of Org syntax, for reasons that I cannot understand.
Nobody ever said anything coming close to that.
> So, there is no middle path.
I can see plenty of them!
> Either the project continues towards its goal, or it stops
> here. Obviously, I'd rather have the maintainer's opinion on this.
Yes. In the meantime, other users' voices can help us step back and
see things differently.
--
Bastien
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, (continued)
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Bastien, 2014/03/01
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/03/01
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Bastien, 2014/03/01
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/03/01
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Bastien, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Matt Lundin, 2014/03/03
Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Yasushi SHOJI, 2014/03/01
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Bastien, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated,
Bastien <=
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Thorsten Jolitz, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Josiah Schwab, 2014/03/02
- Re: [O] link interfering with brackets when abbreviated, Michael Brand, 2014/03/03
- [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation (was: link interfering with brackets when abbreviated), Bastien, 2014/03/03
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Matt Lundin, 2014/03/03
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Nick Dokos, 2014/03/03
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Jonathan Leech-Pepin, 2014/03/03
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Sebastien Vauban, 2014/03/14
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Bastien, 2014/03/21
- Re: [O] Context of interaction vs. literal syntactic interpretation, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/03/21