Hi Nicolas,
Bastien writes:
> Indeed -- but this can easily be fixed. Thanks for the comment
> on my dirty hack, I will implement something based on this idea
> and we'll see if it fits.
This is now implemented in
http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/commit/?id=b11570
Best,
--
Bastien
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Actually, it will not work in comments (point is X):
>
> # Some http://orgmode.org/file.html
> # and http://orgmode.org/other-fileX.html
>
> The code will open the first link, not the second one.
Indeed -- but this can easily be fixed. Thanks for the c
Correcting myself:
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Bastien writes:
>
>> (defun org-open-links-in-comment-and-properties ()
>> "Open links in a comment or in a property."
>> (interactive)
>> (let ((string-ahead (and (looking-at ".+") (match-string 0)))
>> (value (org-element-property :v
Hello,
Bastien writes:
> I don't think `org-element-context' should be sloppy *at all*.
[...]
> For example, on a comment, (eq 'comment (car (org-element-at-point)))
*coughs* (eq 'comment (org-element-type (org-element-at-point)))
> should always return `t'. But if the user wants to open br
Nicolas Richard writes:
> For comparison, AucTeX has a variable LaTeX-syntactic-comments which
> controls that kind of thing : "If non-nil comments will be handled
> according to LaTeX syntax."
That's interesting indeed, thanks for sharing.
--
Bastien
Bastien writes:
> I don't think `org-element-context' should be sloppy *at all*.
>
> Hope this all makes sense -- let me know what you think.
It makes sense to me, and I agree with you : org element should not
parse the syntax differently just because e.g. we put a link in a
comment and want to o
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> As you may know, `org-element-context' returns the object under point,
> according to Org Syntax. The questions are: should it be a little
> sloppy, for convenience? And, if it should, what degree of sloppiness is
> acceptable?
I don't think `org-element-co
Hello,
Rasmus writes:
> Would it make sense to make it optional?
I thought about it. But adding an optional argument to determine if
`org-element-context' should be strict or sloppy doesn't help in
practice, since one will probably often wonder if he needs to switch to
sloppy mode or not.
Also
Hi,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> As you may know, `org-element-context' returns the object under point,
> according to Org Syntax. The questions are: should it be a little
> sloppy, for convenience? And, if it should, what degree of sloppiness is
> acceptable?
Would it make sense to make it option
Hello,
As you may know, `org-element-context' returns the object under point,
according to Org Syntax. The questions are: should it be a little
sloppy, for convenience? And, if it should, what degree of sloppiness is
acceptable?
Note that, at the time being, the function is already somewhat slopp
10 matches
Mail list logo
