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