Oh yeah, I agree that it's redundant--and that's why I was more just advocating for the functionality it provided rather than for the module itself.
It's just a piece of functionality that a lot of people seem to use and enjoy, and if there were a way to keep it without holding onto a second templating system, I feel like there would be significantly less resistance to disabling it. The reasons for disabling tempo are good ones! But they also have the side effect of effectively disabling something that a significant number of people are already using and prefer. And unlike external modules, it already has a pretty strong reputation for being in "vanilla" Org-mode. I mean, I know I've already had to revise a number of Emacs Stack Exchange answers with an explanation of why this no longer works. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 5:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > > > Archenoth <archen...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> The tab key is extremely easy to hit, and having a fully formed block > >> created by typing a short string of characters makes the > >> tab-completion lizard-part of my brain happy in a way that key chord > >> combos simply don't. > > > > You say it better than I did - I will see if I can add a completion > > mechanism to `org-insert-structure-template' that is not to hackish. > > Note that the "the TAB is extremely easy to hit" is not really an > argument here. It is no more true than "< s TAB" is faster than "C-c C-, > s", i.e., it depends on users, as we already observed. > > More generally, this discussion is not about "Is Org Tempo useful?". The > answer is simple: yes, it is for some users. No need to argue about > that. But you can also find plenty of useful Org extensions in > "contrib/", or any ELPA. This does not mean they should all ship with > Org. > > Deciding if an extension should or should not go into Org proper is > usually not an easy decision. In this case, a strong argument against it > is: there is already a template mechanism available out of the box, why > would we provide two of them? I think we should focus on this topic, > rather than personal preferences. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Goaziou >