email got truncated the 1st time, hope it's bee better this time.
> George Mauer writes:
>> is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
> I don't think so. It seems the emphasis markers are hard-coded
> in various places.
>
> From a quick look at the code, you'd have to
> George Mauer writes:
>> is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
> I don't think so. It seems the emphasis markers are hard-coded
> in various places.
>
> From a quick look at the code, you'd have to customize
> `org-emphasis-alist` and redefine `org-set-emph-re` and
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:24 PM John Kitchin
wrote:
> I have used an approach like the one here
> https://endlessparentheses.com/define-context-aware-keys-in-emacs.html
>
> to make context aware key-bindings.
>
> THanks John. That post was very helpful -- really all I was looking for
was
John Kitchin writes:
>> The challenge can be in identifying the most appropriate key bindings.
>> This can depend on the platform you use as well. When I was only using
>> Linux, I used the 'super' key for this and it was great. However, when I
>> also started using a mac, I had to define a
> The challenge can be in identifying the most appropriate key bindings.
> This can depend on the platform you use as well. When I was only using
> Linux, I used the 'super' key for this and it was great. However, when I
> also started using a mac, I had to define a new scheme. It can take a
> bit
Matt Price writes:
> On Wed., Mar. 31, 2021, 3:22 p.m. Timothy, wrote:
>
> autofrettage writes:
>
> > Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~ in Emacs?
> >
> > (I guess it is clear I haven't thought about the consequences.)
>
> You can add that just to the Org-mode map. That wouldn't be too
I have used an approach like the one here
https://endlessparentheses.com/define-context-aware-keys-in-emacs.html
to make context aware key-bindings.
Matt Price writes:
> On Wed., Mar. 31, 2021, 3:22 p.m. Timothy, wrote:
>
>>
>> autofrettage writes:
>>
>> > Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~
On Wed., Mar. 31, 2021, 3:22 p.m. Timothy, wrote:
>
> autofrettage writes:
>
> > Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~ in Emacs?
> >
> > (I guess it is clear I haven't thought about the consequences.)
>
> You can add that just to the Org-mode map. That wouldn't be too bad,
> there's always C-q.
>
Hello,
Maxim Nikulin writes:
> On 05/04/2021 06:06, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> Joost Kremers writes:
>>
>>> I tend to agree that allowing local modifications of Org's syntax is pretty
>>> much
>>> pointless, but then why is `org-emphasis-alist` a user option?
>> In practice, the faces, i.e.,
On 05/04/2021 06:06, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Joost Kremers writes:
I tend to agree that allowing local modifications of Org's syntax is pretty much
pointless, but then why is `org-emphasis-alist` a user option?
In practice, the faces, i.e., the values, are meant to be customizable,
not the
Hello,
Joost Kremers writes:
> So if I were so inclined, I could write a parser for Markdown that produces
> this
> internal format and get all the export targets that Org has? (Not that I'm so
> inclined... Just wondering. ;-) )
You can turn this internal format back to Org syntax with
On Sun, Apr 04 2021, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Joost Kremers writes:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 03 2021, Tom Gillespie wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why folks couldn't just customize
>>> org-emphasis-alist using a file local variable?
>
> [...]
>
>> If all exporters worked off an internal representation
Hello,
Bill Burdick writes:
> Allowing local modifications lets people experiment and share
> their impressions.
Local modifications are allowed, this is Elisp after all. I don't see
a good reason to make it easier, tho.
> Unless the org-mode format is perfect for universal needs now and into
On 02/04/2021 18:23, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 01 Apr 2021 at 09:32, autofrettage wrote:
Please evaluate the design of Org Mode (and other things) without
putting a value on how similar it is to other things. A bicycle would
appear more familiar to a car driver if we replaced the handlebar
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 7:21 AM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> Anyway, one of the goals of Org is to provide a universal document
> format. It is not there yet, but allowing local modifications of the
> syntax certainly goes against that goal.
>
Allowing local modifications lets people experiment and
Hello,
Joost Kremers writes:
> On Sat, Apr 03 2021, Tom Gillespie wrote:
>> Is there any reason why folks couldn't just customize
>> org-emphasis-alist using a file local variable?
[...]
> If all exporters worked off an internal representation such as what is
> returned by
On Sat, Apr 03 2021, Tom Gillespie wrote:
> Is there any reason why folks couldn't just customize
> org-emphasis-alist using a file local variable? Just add ("`" org-code
> verbatim) and see what happens. Knowing a bit about the codebase this
> will probably lead to trouble during export because
Is there any reason why folks couldn't just customize
org-emphasis-alist using a file local variable? Just add ("`" org-code
verbatim) and see what happens. Knowing a bit about the codebase this
will probably lead to trouble during export because the backends are
likely unaware, but at least it
On Do 01 Apr 2021 at 09:32, autofrettage wrote:
> I vote against backticks, since I think we can learn to live with some
> diversity. Running with the crowd, the latest fashion, would, in the
> end, leave us with something like Word and Windows, that is, something
> which is seductively easy to
Joost Kremers writes:
> On Fri, Apr 02 2021, Tim Cross wrote:
>> Getting backticks to font-lock correctly is relatively easy. Getting the
>> exporters to understand the new syntax is more of a challenge
>
> Don't the exporters work off of some intermediate representation, like Pandoc
> does? I
On Fri, Apr 02 2021, Tim Cross wrote:
> Getting backticks to font-lock correctly is relatively easy. Getting the
> exporters to understand the new syntax is more of a challenge
Don't the exporters work off of some intermediate representation, like Pandoc
does? I kinda thought that was what
Samuel Wales writes:
> n.b. everybody knows better in this thread, but the docstring of
> org-emphasis-alist seemed to me like `test` + reload would fontify.
Getting backticks to font-lock correctly is relatively easy. Getting the
exporters to understand the new syntax is more of a challenge
n.b. everybody knows better in this thread, but the docstring of
org-emphasis-alist seemed to me like `test` + reload would fontify.
Maxim Nikulin writes:
> On 01/04/2021 02:24, Sébastien Miquel wrote:
>> George Mauer writes:
>>> is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
>> For the cosmetic part, there's this piece of code from
>>
On 01/04/2021 02:24, Sébastien Miquel wrote:
George Mauer writes:
is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
For the cosmetic part, there's this piece of code from
https://archive.casouri.cat/note/2020/better-looking-verbatim-markup-in-org-mode/index.html
I vote against backticks, since I think we can learn to live with some
diversity. Running with the crowd, the latest fashion, would, in the end, leave
us with something like Word and Windows, that is, something which is
seductively easy to use the first two days, but a pain in the neck the rest
On 2021-03-31, at 21:19, Timothy wrote:
> autofrettage writes:
>
>> Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~ in Emacs?
My first thought exactly. And I'd definitely use it - I need to use
Markdown more often than I'd like to (chat, wikis, (cloud-based) task
management system...).
>> (I guess it
George and all,
whether it's the right thing to do or not, i don't know. but, i'm very
sympathetic to the urge. even when posting to the list, the reflex to
use back ticks is strong.
Greg
Grepping for src_ in *.el in the org distro shows 11 hits over 3 files:
ob-core.el, ob-exp.el, and org-element.el. That's where you can start
working if you want to copy those functions into your init files and modify
them for yourself, or you can see if maybe using function advice is
sufficient.
just personal opinion but i wouldn't want org's syntax to get more
heterogeneous and non-orthogonal/non-factored.
i could see room for an orthogonal/factored flexible syntax, like
"parsing risk" and "extensible syntax" threads on this ml. this would
be the one syntax to rule them all, /vaguely/
"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" writes:
> George Mauer writes:
>> - lists with dashes, org supports that just fine
>
> or stars (not possible with org) or plus (in org).
>
>> *bold text* with stars, again org already does this
>
> Note that this does not match markdown: Markdown uses *emphasis*
George Mauer writes:
> - lists with dashes, org supports that just fine
or stars (not possible with org) or plus (in org).
> *bold text* with stars, again org already does this
Note that this does not match markdown: Markdown uses *emphasis* and **strong**.
> `backtick code`, org doesn't
The point I'm making is that this is already the de-facto thing. People on
this email list do it, people in talking in irc and in forums do it. I
don't think it has so much to do with markdown documents as it does with
Slack, Discord, Teams, even google chat adopting that convention. All our
The approach I've taken is to try and stop using Markdown altogether and
write everything in Org, exporting to Markdown for those destinations that
need it.
You could even use https://github.com/tecosaur/org-pandoc-import to
automatically convert/reconvert other formats as needed, and
> > I would like to submit that org consider adopting backticks as an alternate
> > way of denoting inline code.
>
> Just FYI, this is almost certainly not going to happen.
Perhaps as unlikely as Python adopts 'i' instead of 'j' in complex numbers? It
looks awful for all but electrical and
George Mauer writes:
> I would like to submit that org consider adopting backticks as an alternate
> way of denoting inline code.
Just FYI, this is almost certainly not going to happen.
--
Timothy
George Mauer writes:
is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
I don't think so. It seems the emphasis markers are hard-coded
in various places.
From a quick look at the code, you'd have to customize
`org-emphasis-alist` and redefine `org-set-emph-re` and
autofrettage writes:
> Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~ in Emacs?
>
> (I guess it is clear I haven't thought about the consequences.)
You can add that just to the Org-mode map. That wouldn't be too bad,
there's always C-q.
--
Timothy
Hi,
George> Aside from any official movement, I would like to add this to my own
files - is there a straightforward way to extend the org parser to do this?
Quick and Dirty: Bind key '`' to ~ in Emacs?
(I guess it is clear I haven't thought about the consequences.)
Cheers
Rasmus
Markdown uses backticks to denote inline code which should get special
(typically monospace) formatting, org uses the tilde character.
Now I know that org is not markdown, is far more powerful than markdown,
and is not (mostly) the same use cases as markdown. But this one use case
*does* overlap.
40 matches
Mail list logo
