Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks. Some comments follow.
Thanks for the review!
> Jonas Bernoulli <jo...@bernoul.li> writes:
>
>> +In description lists the used bullet is significant when exporting to
>> +Texinfo; when in doubt, then use =-=. An item that uses =+= instead
>> +becomes a new entry in the first column of the table. The above
>> +output can also be produced with:
>>
>> #+begin_example
>> -#+ATTR_TEXINFO: :enum A
>> -1. Alpha
>> -2. Bravo
>> -3. Charlie
>> +,#+attr_texinfo: :table-type vtable :indic asis
>> +- foo ::
>> ++ bar ::
>> + This is the common text for foo and bar.
>> #+end_example
>
> The above is fragile, because pressing <C-c C-c> on an item will
> "repair" the bullets. Therefore, you cannot support mixed bullets in the
> same list.
The alternative also isn't great (see below).
I vaguely remember having run into this feature before when using Org to
record a pros and cons list. As a maintainer I don't like this question
but; could this feature be made optional? (Of course one could use tags
to indicate whether an item is a pro or cons, but for such a simple use-
case that seems more work than necessary and less immediately obvious.)
>> *** Tables in Texinfo export
>> diff --git a/lisp/ox-texinfo.el b/lisp/ox-texinfo.el
>> index b0125894a..35862357d 100644
>> --- a/lisp/ox-texinfo.el
>> +++ b/lisp/ox-texinfo.el
>> @@ -418,6 +418,11 @@ (defun org-texinfo--filter-section-blank-lines
>> (headline _backend _info)
>> "Filter controlling number of blank lines after a section."
>> (replace-regexp-in-string "\n\\(?:\n[ \t]*\\)*\\'" "\n\n" headline))
>>
>> +(defun org-texinfo--filter-parse-tree (tree backend info)
>> + "Normalize headlines and items."
>> + (org-texinfo--normalize-headlines tree backend info)
>> + (org-texinfo--normalize-items tree info))
>
> Could you expound the docstring? Arguments are missing, and "normalize"
> is vague.
This bothered me a bit too when writing it but at the same time
it seemed like overkill to replicate the docstrings of the called
functions. How do you feel about using a hook instead?
(defvar org-texinfo--filter-parse-tree-functions
'(org-texinfo--normalize-headlines
org-texinfo--normalize-items)
"List of functions the `texinfo' back-end applies to the parsed tree.
Each filter is called with three arguments: the parse tree, as
returned by `org-element-parse-buffer', the back-end, as
a symbol, and the communication channel, as a plist. It must
return the modified parse tree to transcode.")
Do you prefer to add the hook functions as done above or should each one
be added individually using add-hook?
>> + (org-element-map tree 'plain-list
>> + (lambda (plain-list)
>> + (when (eq (org-element-property :type plain-list) 'descriptive)
>> + (let ((contents (org-element-contents plain-list)))
>> + (while (setq item (pop contents))
>> + (let ((next-item (car contents)))
>> + (when (and next-item
>> + (equal (org-element-property :bullet next-item) "+
>> "))
>
> The above will fail if `org-list-two-spaces-after-bullet-regexp' is
> non-nil. You should compare the trimmed bullet with "+".
Done. Is this okay?:
(when (and next-item
(string-prefix-p
"+"
(org-element-property :bullet next-item)))
Or should the line-breaks go elsewhere?
> Anyhow, relying on mixed bullets is not great…
The alternative isn't great either.
For example:
- Key: C-c C-w (forge-browse-TYPE) ::
+ Key: C-c C-w (forge-browse-dwim) ::
+ Key: N b I (forge-browse-issues) ::
+ Key: N b P (forge-browse-pullreqs) ::
+ Key: N b t (forge-browse-topic) ::
+ Key: N b i (forge-browse-issue) ::
+ Key: N b p (forge-browse-pullreq) ::
These commands visit the topic, issue(s), pull-request(s), post,
branch, commit, or remote at point in a browser. ...
vs.
- Key: C-c C-w (forge-browse-TYPE), C-c C-w (forge-browse-dwim), N b I
(forge-browse-issues), N b P (forge-browse-pullreqs), N b t
(forge-browse-topic), N b i (forge-browse-issue), N b p (forge-browse-pullreq)
::
These commands visit the topic, issue(s), pull-request(s), post,
branch, commit, or remote at point in a browser. ...
I am sure I am gonna make mistakes when using the latter approach.
Cheers,
Jonas
