Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> 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