Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
I think we may be able get something promising by merging your
(Christian + Tom) ideas and David's. What if we have have a
#+TBLCELLMERGE key which acts as you describe, and /just using the
current table syntax/ have something like this (using the example
from
my first email)
| a | b | c |
|---++---|
| hi|| a |
| two x || . |
| three || b |
| c | - | . |
#+TBLCELLMERGE: @2$1..@4$2
This is /currently/ a valid Org table, which /currently/
autoformats to:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
| hi| | a |
| two x | | . |
| three | | b |
| c | - | . |
So with an autoformatting change + an overlay, perhaps we can do
this
nicely without any syntax changes .
Thoughts?
Christian Moe writes:
+1 for enabling table-cell merges in export. I imagine this
would be a
tricky job for developers, but it would relieve me as a user of
much
repeated fiddling with exported drafts.
+1 for doing it without adding clutter to the table syntax, but
specifying merges on a separate line like formulas, like Tom's
#+TBLCELLMERGE: @2..3$1
(amended here to use the established '..' rather than hyphen for
range)
Though if we do add such a line, we might also think of a more
general
solution that could over time be extended with additional
formatting
options, e.g. something like
#+TBLSTYLE: @2..3$1='(:merge t)::@4$1='(:bgcolor yellow :color
red)
But obviously that could open a can of worms, aka potentially
endless
feature requests requiring different implementations for each
backend.
Yours,
Christian
Tom Gillespie writes:
Any support for something like this would need to retain
backward
compatibility as well to avoid older versions reformatting the
tables
due to e.g. the presence of a double pipe. I also think that
extending
the table syntax in ways that makes it more complex than it
already
is, will be a non-starter. Thus, an alternate but more likely
approach
would be to allow specification of what cells to merge outside
the
table as is done for formulas. It is not elegant, but it would
be a
layer on top of existing syntax, and it would allow the
fundamental
structure of the table to remain the same -- rows of cells. For
example #+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-3$1 or something like that.
Thoughts?
Tom
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM TEC wrote:
Hi all,
This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
important
one.
When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to
start
using
multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
results.
As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
multi-col/row
syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
table
using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to
(in
my
case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work
with,
and
could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row
syntax.
I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both
the
Org's
syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is
warranted
by the
advantages it would provide.
Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating
the
chance
of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what
syntax
may be
both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
characters
to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and
"-".
These
characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
space) a
cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
right cell.
Example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
| a | - | | |
| - | b | . |
| . | | | c |
Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
However,
| hello | there | you |
|---+---+--|
|| two column | cell |
Contains a 2x1 cell.
| a little | test |
|--+--|
|- hello | hi |
| two row | you |
Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
||-- hi | a |
| two x | . |
| three | b |
| c | - | . |
Contains a 2x3 cell.
This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but
hopefully
the
general form of this idea seems viable.
All the best,
Timothy.
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
+1 for enabling table-cell merges in export. I imagine this would be a
tricky job for developers, but it would relieve me as a user of much
repeated fiddling with exported drafts.
+1 for doing it without adding clutter to the table syntax, but
specifying merges on a separate line like formulas, like Tom's
#+TBLCELLMERGE: @2..3$1
(amended here to use the established '..' rather than hyphen for range)
Though if we do add such a line, we might also think of a more general
solution that could over time be extended with additional formatting
options, e.g. something like
#+TBLSTYLE: @2..3$1='(:merge t)::@4$1='(:bgcolor yellow :color red)
But obviously that could open a can of worms, aka potentially endless
feature requests requiring different implementations for each backend.
Yours,
Christian
Tom Gillespie writes:
> Any support for something like this would need to retain backward
> compatibility as well to avoid older versions reformatting the tables
> due to e.g. the presence of a double pipe. I also think that extending
> the table syntax in ways that makes it more complex than it already
> is, will be a non-starter. Thus, an alternate but more likely approach
> would be to allow specification of what cells to merge outside the
> table as is done for formulas. It is not elegant, but it would be a
> layer on top of existing syntax, and it would allow the fundamental
> structure of the table to remain the same -- rows of cells. For
> example #+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-3$1 or something like that. Thoughts?
> Tom
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM TEC wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
>> important
>> one.
>>
>> When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to start
>> using
>> multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
>> results.
>>
>> As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
>> multi-col/row
>> syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
>> table
>> using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to (in
>> my
>> case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work with,
>> and
>> could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row syntax.
>>
>> I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both the
>> Org's
>> syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is warranted
>> by the
>> advantages it would provide.
>>
>> Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating the
>> chance
>> of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what syntax
>> may be
>> both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
>>
>> I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
>> characters
>> to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and "-".
>> These
>> characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
>> space) a
>> cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
>> right cell.
>>
>> Example:
>> | a | b | c |
>> |---+---+---|
>> | a | - | | |
>> | - | b | . |
>> | . | | | c |
>>
>> Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
>>
>> However,
>>
>> | hello | there | you |
>> |---+---+--|
>> || two column | cell |
>>
>> Contains a 2x1 cell.
>>
>> | a little | test |
>> |--+--|
>> |- hello | hi |
>> | two row | you |
>>
>> Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
>>
>> | a | b | c |
>> |---+---+---|
>> ||-- hi | a |
>> | two x | . |
>> | three | b |
>> | c | - | . |
>>
>> Contains a 2x3 cell.
>>
>> This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but hopefully
>> the
>> general form of this idea seems viable.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Timothy.
>>
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
TEC writes: David Rogers writes: IMO this can (and definitely should) be regarded as a purely cosmetic problem, to be resolved by purely cosmetic methods. I think the idea that each table cell is exactly one unit of information (and can’t be a collection or array of units of information) is more important than this issue. In other words, I think it’s better to ridiculously overload fontification and output formatting, than to sacrifice the main logic of how tables currently work. I just don’t believe that it could be worth it. The appearance of the tables is purely cosmetic ... however when one ends up maintaining three copies of the same table, I don't think that dismissing it offhand as a "cosmetic problem" is a productive approach. I’m not using the word in a dismissive way; I just think fixing the problem “head-on“, solving a display problem by display solutions, is better than disruptively (and permanently) changing the logic in order to improve the display. -- David Rogers
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
David Rogers writes: IMO this can (and definitely should) be regarded as a purely cosmetic problem, to be resolved by purely cosmetic methods. I think the idea that each table cell is exactly one unit of information (and can’t be a collection or array of units of information) is more important than this issue. In other words, I think it’s better to ridiculously overload fontification and output formatting, than to sacrifice the main logic of how tables currently work. I just don’t believe that it could be worth it. The appearance of the tables is purely cosmetic ... however when one ends up maintaining three copies of the same table, I don't think that dismissing it offhand as a "cosmetic problem" is a productive approach. -- Timothy
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
TEC writes: Hi all, This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an important one. When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to start using multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting results. IMO this can (and definitely should) be regarded as a purely cosmetic problem, to be resolved by purely cosmetic methods. I think the idea that each table cell is exactly one unit of information (and can’t be a collection or array of units of information) is more important than this issue. In other words, I think it’s better to ridiculously overload fontification and output formatting, than to sacrifice the main logic of how tables currently work. I just don’t believe that it could be worth it. -- David Rogers
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
Tom Gillespie writes:
Any support for something like this would need to retain
backward
compatibility as well to avoid older versions reformatting the
tables
due to e.g. the presence of a double pipe. I also think that
extending
the table syntax in ways that makes it more complex than it
already
is, will be a non-starter.
I am also concerned with avoiding disrupting previous table. I
think
that non-space double+ pipes should be alright (hence their part
in my
suggestion) as it still maintains that the number of columns is
equal to
the number of pipes. E.g. currently
|| a| b | = 3 columns, and is reformatted to | | a | b |
proposal
|| a| b | = 2 cells, 2+1=3 columns (same)
Thus, an alternate but more likely approach
would be to allow specification of what cells to merge outside
the
table as is done for formulas. It is not elegant, but it would
be a
layer on top of existing syntax, and it would allow the
fundamental
structure of the table to remain the same -- rows of cells. For
example #+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-3$1 or something like that. Thoughts?
Tom
I like how this seems to address the issue while keeping backwards
compatibility, but I have two big concerns:
1. I think this could make it hard to see which cells are
'masked' by a
merge at a glance, and would make associated errors easy
2. I think that for say a table with 2-3 large sub-sections this
could
lead to problematic formating.
Regarding 2, E.g. (content and form made up on the spot)
| Powerpoint | Voltage ripple while drawing 2A continuous load
over Xs || | | | Current ripple while drawing
24V continuous load over Xs ||| || |
||
1s | 5s | 10s | 20s | 30s |
1s | 2s | 5s | 10s | 20 | 30s |
|+-++-+-+-+--+++-++-|
| Kitchen|
3% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2% |
1% | 4% | 3% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| Bedroom|
1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
#+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-6$1,@7-11$1
vs.
| Powerpoint | Voltage ripple while drawing 2A continuous load
over Xs || Current ripple while drawing 24V continuous load
over Xs |
|| 1s | 5s | 10s | 20s | 30s
| 1s | 2s | 5s | 10s | 20 | 30s
|
|+++-+-+---++++-++-|
| Kitchen| 3% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2%
| 1% | 4% | 3% | 5% | 3% | 2%
|
| Bedroom| 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1%
| 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1%
|
(NB: clearer without line wrapping, more concise examples
definitely
available if I thought about it a tad more)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM TEC wrote:
Hi all,
This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
important
one.
When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to
start
using
multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
results.
As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
multi-col/row
syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
table
using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to
(in
my
case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work
with,
and
could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row
syntax.
I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both the
Org's
syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is
warranted
by the
advantages it would provide.
Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating
the
chance
of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what syntax
may be
both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
characters
to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and
"-".
These
characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
space) a
cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
right cell.
Example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
| a | - | | |
| - | b | . |
| . | | | c |
Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
However,
| hello | there | you |
|---+---+--|
|| two column | cell |
Contains a 2x1 cell.
| a little | test |
|--+--|
|- hello | hi |
| two row | you |
Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
||-- hi | a |
| two x | . |
| three | b |
| c | - | . |
Contains a 2x3 cell.
This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but hopefully
the
general form of this idea seems viable.
All the best,
Timothy.
Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
Any support for something like this would need to retain backward
compatibility as well to avoid older versions reformatting the tables
due to e.g. the presence of a double pipe. I also think that extending
the table syntax in ways that makes it more complex than it already
is, will be a non-starter. Thus, an alternate but more likely approach
would be to allow specification of what cells to merge outside the
table as is done for formulas. It is not elegant, but it would be a
layer on top of existing syntax, and it would allow the fundamental
structure of the table to remain the same -- rows of cells. For
example #+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-3$1 or something like that. Thoughts?
Tom
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM TEC wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
> important
> one.
>
> When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to start
> using
> multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
> results.
>
> As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
> multi-col/row
> syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
> table
> using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to (in
> my
> case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work with,
> and
> could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row syntax.
>
> I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both the
> Org's
> syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is warranted
> by the
> advantages it would provide.
>
> Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating the
> chance
> of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what syntax
> may be
> both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
>
> I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
> characters
> to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and "-".
> These
> characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
> space) a
> cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
> right cell.
>
> Example:
> | a | b | c |
> |---+---+---|
> | a | - | | |
> | - | b | . |
> | . | | | c |
>
> Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
>
> However,
>
> | hello | there | you |
> |---+---+--|
> || two column | cell |
>
> Contains a 2x1 cell.
>
> | a little | test |
> |--+--|
> |- hello | hi |
> | two row | you |
>
> Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
>
> | a | b | c |
> |---+---+---|
> ||-- hi | a |
> | two x | . |
> | three | b |
> | c | - | . |
>
> Contains a 2x3 cell.
>
> This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but hopefully
> the
> general form of this idea seems viable.
>
> All the best,
>
> Timothy.
>
Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax
Hi all,
This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
important
one.
When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to start
using
multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
results.
As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
multi-col/row
syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
table
using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to (in
my
case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work with,
and
could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row syntax.
I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both the
Org's
syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is warranted
by the
advantages it would provide.
Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating the
chance
of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what syntax
may be
both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
characters
to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and "-".
These
characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
space) a
cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
right cell.
Example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
| a | - | | |
| - | b | . |
| . | | | c |
Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
However,
| hello | there | you |
|---+---+--|
|| two column | cell |
Contains a 2x1 cell.
| a little | test |
|--+--|
|- hello | hi |
| two row | you |
Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
| a | b | c |
|---+---+---|
||-- hi | a |
| two x | . |
| three | b |
| c | - | . |
Contains a 2x3 cell.
This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but hopefully
the
general form of this idea seems viable.
All the best,
Timothy.
