Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:

> I did not know this and I cannot find any reference about such behaviour
> in manual (info:org#Markup for Rich Contents).

You can find it looking for "line break" in the index. It points there:
(info "(org) Paragraphs").

>>> However, it is unused it unordered lists. We might define a note as a
>>> unnumbered list item with [@note]:
>>> - [@note] This is note
>> That's a reasonable syntax extension, maybe too English-centered. Maybe
>> a more abstract [@!] would be better.
> It also looks better for me.
> Should I open separate bug report proposing this syntax extension?

Thinking again about it, I'm not sold about this idea. Is extending the
syntax the way to go? 

Sure, in the proposal above, it is relatively cheap. But what is the
meaning of an item marked as a "note"? Everything in an entry could be
a note; this is not limited to items. Moreover, if we are considering it
to be a note just because it was automatically inserted using
`org-add-log-note', then we are binding the tool to the syntax. This is
a mistake.

I would like to reconsider the solution to your use case. With a non-nil
value for `org-log-into-drawer', it is possible to guess the location of
the last inserted note, assuming manually inserted ones—if there is
any—also follow the same pattern. Under such a reasonable configuration,
it should not be too difficult to write a function extracting the last
note, or a whole library operating on notes (ideas: move log-related
functions to a new "org-log.el" library, simplify it using Org Capture
as the machinery, extend it…).

Maybe I got lost in this long thread, but what are we really missing
here? Possibly a generic solution, but do we really need one? If you
want to access programmatically to notes, don't set
`org-log-into-drawer' to nil.

Nicolas Goaziou

Reply via email to