arthur miller <[email protected]> writes: > Because as said, I would expect EXP to be a valid symbolic expression, > since that is what manual says. I could have used lambda as well, but > why keeping undocumented bug if it can be fixed?
We are open to fixing the documentation in this area. Both in the manual and in the docstrings. >> Changing the current meaning of the form would break configurations that >> Salready rely on it. > > Yeah, I am aware of it myself. > > Question is how many people use that feature at all? Packages like doct use it. I personally use it. I have seen many people using it, for example, to auto-generate heading :ID: on capture template level. > ... All templates > I have seen, use just simple pre-defined escapes and interactive escapes. I > don't doubt that someone is using them, question is if it is worth of not > being able to use variables %() just to not break few templates, which would > be easily fixed (just add a pair of parenthesis around). > > We could also have it as opt-in, keep the old one as the default, and the > new one as the opt-in. If we document that (EXP), not EXP should be a valid expression, we are good. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
