Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

* John Wiegley wrote: > > In my regimen, every single entry has a PROPERTIES drawer, since I tag each > one with ID and CREATED, for future reference. This also holds for my Org-mode files - in general. > Most items are SCHEDULED as well. So when I open up a headline to >

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: >> Aaron Ecay writes: > >> Adding knobs to this parser increases the burden of those who have to build >> and maintain it. > > Thank you for your reply, Aaron, I found it most illuminating. > > If the answer from the maintainers

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

Hello, Thomas S. Dye writes: > Is the hook he is requesting a difficult thing to implement? Would it > be possible to describe the customization variable in a "Super User" > section that is clearly not for the faint at heart? > > I'm not suggesting anyone should implement a

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: > There is another vector to consider, and a far more nebulous one: How does it > impact Org's "luft"? That is, the feeling of ease and comfort Org conveys in > its use. FWIW, I personally have found org both faster and much more reliable thanks to

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Thomas S. Dye writes: > >> Is the hook he is requesting a difficult thing to implement? Would it >> be possible to describe the customization variable in a "Super User" >> section that is clearly not for the faint at

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Achim Gratz writes: > If you don't use properties then it doesn't affect you at all. If you do, > then… well, I personally simply don't care. Just like there's several style > guides for writing C; as long as these are applied consistently I can live > with most of them

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: > If the answer from the maintainers is "It's more work than we want to do", > that's completely acceptable. I've been operating under the premise that it > wouldn't be difficult to add such an option (just the hook, mind you, not the > functionality behind it). To answer

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I really don't like the idea of making Org /syntax/ customizable, would it > be with the help of a hook or a variable. >From what I've seen so far, several users want regularity of syntax to decide formatting, and several users want user

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

Matt Lundin writes: > John Wiegley writes: > >>> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >>> I really don't like the idea of making Org /syntax/ customizable, would it >>> be with the help of a hook or a variable. >> >> From what I've seen

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> I really don't like the idea of making Org /syntax/ customizable, would it >> be with the help of a hook or a variable. > > From what I've seen so far, several users want regularity of syntax to

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: > In my regimen, every single entry has a PROPERTIES drawer, since I tag each > one with ID and CREATED, for future reference. Most items are SCHEDULED as > well. So when I open up a headline to look at the contents, I see: > > * Head > SCHEDULED > text >

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Achim Gratz writes: > So isn't your request rather to hide the properties drawer better by > default? You were _only_ talking about the UX in this whole thread and that > might be a lot easier to adapt while not changing the way Org syntax is > defined. Good call,

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files (Was: bug in org-habits)

On 10/11/15 02:40, Aaron Ecay wrote: I think it’s more illuminating to think of it in terms of org as a tool: have the changes made it more difficult for you to accomplish your goals with org? Has something that was previously possible become impossible? Has something that was previously easy

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

On 09/11/15 21:04, Achim Gratz wrote: John Wiegley writes: You will find that the argument really wasn't about performance, but complexity. I can accept a complexity argument, I meant O() complexity, not implementation complexity. if my request were really "a separate code-path". I'm not

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Stelian Iancu writes: > John, if you end up writing an advice for this function, please share it > with the list, as I would like the 8.2 behavior as well (I unfortunately > don't know enough elisp and org internals to do such a thing). To Achim I would say that these

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files (Was: bug in org-habits)

Hi John, 2015ko azaroak 9an, John Wiegley-ek idatzi zuen: [...] > Lately there seems to be a push to sacrifice some of this freedom in order to > gain efficiency and regularity. I imagine this is for the benefit of machine > parsers; but what if one doesn't use any machine parsers? I don’t

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Aaron Ecay writes: > Adding knobs to this parser increases the burden of those who have to build > and maintain it. Thank you for your reply, Aaron, I found it most illuminating. If the answer from the maintainers is "It's more work than we want to do", that's

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

Hi, I share my personal views on this below. John Wiegley writes: >> John Wiegley writes: > >> I spoke to Nicolas directly and he mentioned that a goal for syntax >> regularity is to make it possible to reliably read and manipulate Org files >> outside

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Rasmus writes: >> To those who repeat the performance argument: This is an opt-in only >> request. It is not about changing the performance of default Org, or making >> files more difficult to parse outside of Emacs for everyone. > I disagree with your last claim. I'm not

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Achim Gratz writes: > The whole point of defining a formal syntax for Org is that it becomes > possible to parse Org documents with something other than Emacs and still > make sense of them. To reap that benefit, you need to drop some of the > ad-hoc parsing that Org did

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

> Rasmus writes: > If the placement of properties is "free", the secondary interpreter /must/ > support this customization option to be able to interpret the org format. > Note, this matters for both interactive usage (being able to click/open a > reference) and for "export"

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: >> John Wiegley writes: >> I spoke to Nicolas directly and he mentioned that a goal for syntax >> regularity is to make it possible to reliably read and manipulate Org files >> outside of Emacs. How about keeping the discussion on the list and stop Cc: and

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: >> You will find that the argument really wasn't about performance, but >> complexity. > > I can accept a complexity argument, I meant O() complexity, not implementation complexity. > if my request were really "a separate > code-path". I'm not sure it is. For example, my

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

Hi John, John Wiegley writes: >> Rasmus writes: > >>> To those who repeat the performance argument: This is an opt-in only >>> request. It is not about changing the performance of default Org, or making >>> files more difficult to parse outside of Emacs

Re: [O] Allowing loose ordering in Org files

John Wiegley writes: > > There is another vector to consider, and a far more nebulous one: How does it > impact Org's "luft"? That is, the feeling of ease and comfort Org conveys in > its use. > > There are many highly functional alternatives to Org that I've tried and >