Eric Abrahamsen <> writes:

> I've tried more than once over the past couple of years to attack
> orgstruct mode, and been defeated every time. Largely because
> indentation/filling is so damn complicated (too many layers of
> indirection for my little brain), and orgstruct added yet another layer
> of indirection on top of that. I think a rewrite would not be a bad
> thing, and would be happy to participate.

Basically, OrgStruct is Org with a very limited syntax, i.e., it only
recognizes headlines and lists. OrgStruct++ adds indentation and

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.

> The one thing I like about the package (indeed, it's what the bulk of
> the code actually does) is the ability to "pop up" a single annotation's
> text in a small, easily-dismissed special-mode buffer. Also, to display
> all of a buffer's annotations in a tabulated-list pop-up buffer, where
> you can easily jump to/edit/delete the various annotations.
> Obviously Org footnotes (and future annotations) have jump there/jump
> back capability, but for some reason I feel much more comfortable with
> this style of browsing.

Have you tried C-c ' one a footnote reference? Unlike to C-c C-o, it
will pop-up a dedicated buffer for editing.

However, there is no global view of all footnotes. If it is useful, it
might be nice to add one and trigger it from, e.g., to
`org-footnote-action's menu.

> 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. 


Reply via email to