Christian Moe <[email protected]> writes: >> So, I am thinking about something more intuitive like >> - :strip-colnames >> - :detach-colnames > > I agree that the =:colnames <yes|no|nil>= header is confusing, but one > can just about get it by reading the passage from the manual carefully. > Possibly the manual could be made clearer yet with your formulations.
Well. I did read the manual carefully. Yet, I keep being confused by this option over and over. > It seems to me that the names ':strip-colnames' and ':detach-colnames' > are also potentially misleading, because they only explicitly state that > column names will be removed, not that they will be re-attached. If > we're looking for a header name that makes more intuitive sense of the > 'yes' and 'no' values, I'd maybe propose ':has-colnames'. :has-colnames sounds good. > But I'm not sure any slight gains in clarity justify a breaking change > in the header name (and presumably in the ':rownames' header name as > well). I do not intend to make any breaking changes. If we rename this header argument, the process will be the following: 1. Leave the existing :colnames handling in the code 2. Add :has-colnames as an alias, handled identically with :colnames 3. Replace :colnames with :has-colnames in the documentation That way, old :colnames will still work for people. The clearer alternative will be encouraged in the documentation, so that people can slowly migrate (or not). >> The allowed values should also be yes, no, and 'auto (previously nil). > > Would that still default to 'auto in the absence of any colnames header? Sure. -- 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>
