Re: "Why is emacs so square?"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden,
>       address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:36:55 -0400
> 
> It appears that what people call "Org mode" is a collection of diverse
> features, and what they have in common is use of a certain format of
> the text.  Is that right?

More or less, AFAIK.  The common features are more than just the
format, but the format is AFAIU the most important one.

>   > > As a consequence, it probably makes little sense to separate such
>   > > "facilities"---the term would need to be properly defined in the current
>   > > context, tho---, because each of them implies full support for the whole
>   > > Org syntax.
> 
> Maybe that is how things are now, but is there a reason why things
> SHOULD be done this way?  Does each of these features need to support
> "the whole Org syntax"?
> 
> It could be that the simple way of implementing them is by sharing code
> that implements "the whole Org syntax".  If so, I won't argue against
> sharing that code.  But it may not be useful to TALK about the fact
> that each one implements "the whole Org syntax".  And it is possilble
> that it is better to share only part of that code, not all.
> 
> In other words, if we don't let the concept of "Org mode" shape our thinking,
> we might thing of these features differently.

It may be too late to actually separate the various features,
especially since there doesn't seem to be anyone who'd want to do this
(very complex) job.  I think it would be a very useful step if the
documentations and the general classes of the Org features would
present to the users several disparate sets of capabilities, and would
allow users to learn and use only the set(s) they need.

>   > HTH and TIA
> 
> Hold Turnip Head and Turn It Around?  ;-}

Of course, what else?