Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
"Thomas S. Dye" <tsd@tsdye.online> writes:
IIRC, there wasn't much discussion. The current situation
doesn't seem ripe for documentation in the manual.
Here are some potential hurdles:
- there are likely too many built-in backends;
...
One way forward might distinguish between babel backends for
GNU
software and babel backends for non-GNU software, with the
former
built in, guaranteed to be consistent to some standard (which
needs to be formulated), and documented in the manual and the
latter moved to contrib or a package archive, with
documentation
(if any) on Worg.
We have recently reduced the number of built-in backends:
https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/87bl9rq29m....@gnu.org/
Presumably, all that's left is useful is worth maintaining
upstream.
Yes, thanks for the link. I read this thread as a first step
toward enlisting maintainers for built-in backends. This effort
had some success--20 packages have a designated maintainer--but
still leaves 23 packages for the Org mode programmers, which seems
like a lot to me.
- the built-in backends are a mixed bag--ob-lua seems
half-finished to me, though I don't program in lua and
struggled
to set up the language to write the documentation stub on
Worg;
AFAIK, most people assume that built-in backends are stable.
If they are not, it is a bug anyway. Or we should declare that
we do not
maintain them.
I thought "declare that we do not maintain them" meant "move them
to org-contrib". I'm not sure what you have in mind here.
- nearly a dozen of the built-in babel backends lack
documentation outside the source code (see
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/index.html#orgbc466c5);
and
- language support is inconsistent (see
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/lang-compat.html),
which introduces complications for language agnostic literate
programming.
That's what we should work on.
Wonderful!
All the best,
Tom
--
Thomas S. Dye
https://tsdye.online/tsdye
