Re: [O] [PATCH] Process hlines in imported tables

[Eric Schulte]

"Sebastien Vauban" <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric,
>
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>> I would agree that this (meaning raw implies scalar) should either occur
>> for all languages or for none.
>
> I think this is something interesting, but I wonder now if we wouldn't loose
> more than we would win. I mean: how would one be able to output a real "raw"
> result, then, that is one where pipes are not interpreted as table field
> separator which have to be aligned in some specific way.
>
> Do we need another argument for that?
>
> I mean: at the end, raw should really be raw (no interpretation). If we want
> some cycling for table alignment purpose (BTW, do you have lots of such code
> blocks?), maybe it'd be better to introduce a `cycle' argument or so?
>
>> If we do have such header argument implications, then we'd want to put them
>> into the weakest portion of the default header argument hierarchy. Currently
>> this hierarchy looks something like
>>
>> 1. default header arguments shipped with Org-mode
>> 2. user-set default header arguments
>> 3. default languages-specific header arguments shipped with Org-mode
>> 4. user-set default language-specific header arguments
>> 5. buffer or file level header arguments
>> 6. subtree header arguments
>> 7. code block header arguments
>>
>> I think this raw implies verbatim action should probably take place
>> somewhere between 3 and 4, but there could be arguments for other
>> positions.  Also, without looking at the code, I'm not sure how
>> difficult adding such implications would be.
>
> Maybe I don't understand the problem correctly, but I'd think this "raw
> implies verbatim" would have to take place after _each_ above step.
>

Actually I think I was confused when I wrote the above, so please
disregard, sorry for the noise.

Best,

>
> If between 3 and 4, then a raw specified on the block level (step 7)
> wouldn't imply verbatim?  Does that make sense?
>
> I think every raw (be it default, language, buffer, subtree or block-local)
> would have to imply the same reasoning.
>
>> Are there other header argument implication rules which would make code
>> blocks "do what I mean" more naturally in more situations?
>
> Best regards,
>   Seb

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte