Re: [O] Tangling takes long - profiling and calling R

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:

> Could you take a look at
> <http://mid.gmane.org/address@hidden>, specifically the
> paragraph beginning “That looks like a bug”?

This should be fixed in 188bae903feb942355dae6878951e9f13211e1d0. Thank
you for the notice.

> I don’t want to argue the semantics excessively, but “deprecated” should
> mean that users:
> 1) actually change their behavior when creating new documents, or at
>    least
> 2) are aware that the old behavior is in danger of disappearing.
>
> A footnote in the manual and a comment in the elisp file don’t really
> achieve this, as evidenced by the periodic discussions of this point that
> we have.

This is why I suggest to also announce the deprecation in ORG-NEWS, then
effectively remove it in the next release.

> Additionally, last year Eric commented that the deprecation was
> “premature” <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/87739>.  This
> arguably means (among other things) that more effort to publicize it and
> work on its replacement is needed, something that has not really
> happened.

Let's move forward and discuss about what is needed then.

> Neither syntax is necessary, by this metric.  We could just make do with
> local arguments, not needing properties at all.
>
> IOW, this doesn’t distinguish between these two approaches.

You may be misunderstanding me. I don't want to distinguish between
these approaches. Both are certainly fine, but two of them in one too
many. This is just confusing and more difficult to maintain.

>> I suggest to remove the old "dynamic" setting and improve the new
>> "lexical" one, if needed. 
>
> The dynamic vs. lexical metaphor is not very helpful either.

It doesn't matter. Let's call one the "old" setting and the other the
"recent" setting. Or tag them "A" and "B".

> There has been no justification for the new property system proposed
> other than questions of taste such as the above, and efficiency.  The
> efficiency considerations could be solved in several ways.  One obvious
> one would be to use a single call to org-entry-properties rather than N
> calls to org-entry-get.  I feel like a broken record saying this, but it
> was a solution I suggested already, in the last thread
> <http://mid.gmane.org/address@hidden>.  Another, more
> ambitious, solution would be to use the parser cache for
> org-entry-{properties,get}.  There was a patch for this
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/89326>, which never landed
> for a variety of reasons.

I don't think efficiency is a matter here. `org-entry-get' is reasonably
fast nowadays (since properties drawers change), even using inheritance.


Regards,