Re: Survey: changing a few default settings for Org 9.4

[Archenoth]

Oh yeah, I agree that it's redundant--and that's why I was more just
advocating for the functionality it provided rather than for the module
itself.

It's just a piece of functionality that a lot of people seem to use and
enjoy, and if there were a way to keep it without holding onto a second
templating system, I feel like there would be significantly less resistance
to disabling it.

The reasons for disabling tempo are good ones! But they also have the side
effect of effectively disabling something that a significant number of
people are already using and prefer. And unlike external modules, it
already has a pretty strong reputation for being in "vanilla" Org-mode. I
mean, I know I've already had to revise a number of Emacs Stack Exchange
answers with an explanation of why this no longer works.


On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 5:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Bastien  writes:
>
> > Archenoth  writes:
> >
> >> The tab key is extremely easy to hit, and having a fully formed block
> >> created by typing a short string of characters makes the
> >> tab-completion lizard-part of my brain happy in a way that key chord
> >> combos simply don't.
> >
> > You say it better than I did - I will see if I can add a completion
> > mechanism to `org-insert-structure-template' that is not to hackish.
>
> Note that the "the TAB is extremely easy to hit" is not really an
> argument here. It is no more true than "< s TAB" is faster than "C-c C-,
> s", i.e., it depends on users, as we already observed.
>
> More generally, this discussion is not about "Is Org Tempo useful?". The
> answer is simple: yes, it is for some users. No need to argue about
> that. But you can also find plenty of useful Org extensions in
> "contrib/", or any ELPA. This does not mean they should all ship with
> Org.
>
> Deciding if an extension should or should not go into Org proper is
> usually not an easy decision. In this case, a strong argument against it
> is: there is already a template mechanism available out of the box, why
> would we provide two of them? I think we should focus on this topic,
> rather than personal preferences.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>

Re: Survey: changing a few default settings for Org 9.4

[Archenoth]

Yes! Thank you Bastien!

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:26 AM Bastien  wrote:

> > Also, my question is still open: is there any strong reason to provide,
> > out of the box, two template mechanisms in Org? This is genuine
> > question.
>
> No, there is no good reason for two template mechanism, and if we can
> rely on org-insert-structure-template only, while still being able to
> complete <* at the beginning of the line, that'd be perfect to me.
>

I definitely agree with this.

I voted (slightly late) for having org-tempo in org-modules--not out of any
love of org-tempo itself, but more because it feels to me like an extremely
natural way to create blocks.
The tab key is extremely easy to hit, and having a fully formed block
created by typing a short string of characters makes the tab-completion
lizard-part of my brain happy in a way that key chord combos simply don't.

I think this is partly because I personally can't do key chords at the same
rate I can type a string of characters--even if they require technically
the same number of keystrokes.
Like, I can type a 10 character command *significantly* faster than I can
hit a number of different combinations of keys that also happen to be 10
keypresses.

I just personally find it really nice!

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:37 PM Diego Zamboni  wrote:

> Thanks Bastien for all your work!
>
> --Diego
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:50 PM Bastien  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here are the results of the survey, with *47* voters:
>>
>> - 26+2 : org-loop-over-headlines-in-active-region => t
>> - 25+2 : org-agenda-loop-over-headlines-in-active-region => t
>> - 28+3 : org-fontify-done-headline => t
>> - 17+4 : org-hide-emphasis-markers => t
>> - 10+6 : org-hide-macro-markers => t
>> - 15+5 : org-refile-use-cache => t
>> - 23+6 : org-special-ctrl-k => t
>> - 20+6 : org-allow-promoting-top-level-subtree => t
>> - 22+5 : Add org-tempo to org-modules
>>
>> I've changed the values of these options in master:
>>
>> - 35+2 : org-src-tab-acts-natively => t
>> - 28+3 : org-fontify-done-headline => t
>> - 26+2 : org-loop-over-headlines-in-active-region => t
>> - 25+2 : org-agenda-loop-over-headlines-in-active-region => t
>>
>> I've *not* changed the values of these options:
>>
>> - 23+6 : org-special-ctrl-k => t
>> - 22+5 : Add org-tempo to org-modules
>> - 20+6 : org-allow-promoting-top-level-subtree => t
>> - 17+4 : org-hide-emphasis-markers => t
>> - 10+6 : org-hide-macro-markers => t
>> - 15+5 : org-refile-use-cache => t
>>
>> The reason for not changing the default of org-special-ctrl-k is that
>> 23 < 47/2.  Also, I think it was a mistake to propose this: even the
>> org-special- prefix should have warned me.  The org-special-* options
>> should be nil by default, and while org-special-ctrl-k may be useful,
>> it is as useful as org-special-ctrl-a/e, which sticks to nil too.
>>
>> The reason for not adding org-tempo to org-modules is, on top of the
>> poll being 22 < 47/2, that the current discussion on the list leaves
>> room for improvements that may lead to move org-tempo from Org's core
>> anyway.
>>
>> The reason for not changing the four other options is that they did
>> not get enough votes.
>>
>> I've push the change for the three options in current master.
>>
>> Thanks again for participating to the poll and to the discussions!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>>  Bastien
>>
>>