[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Multi-line macros (again)
From: |
Rasmus |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Multi-line macros (again) |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:56:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Jarmo Hurri <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> One of the most useful properties of LaTeX is \newcommand, which allows
>> you to reuse document structures. I really, _really_ miss this feature
>> in Org. Org has #+MACRO, but it is limited to a single line. That is
>> very inconvenient for any larger structures.
>
> Of course, macro are inconvenient for complex structures. They are not
> the right tool for the job. You could use Babel for that, e.g.,
>
> #+name: template
> #+header: :var x="" y=""
>
> #+header: :results silent
> #+begin_src org
>
> $x
> $y
> #+end_src
>
> #+call: template("line 1", "line 2") :results replace
>
> #+RESULTS:
> line 1
> line 2
>
>> Could we have multiline macros, something like
>>
>> #+BEGIN_MACRO name
>> #+END_MACRO
>
> For the record, I think that block syntax is largely overloaded. I'd
> rather not introduce a new type of block without a really good reason.
>
> Anyway, is there anything wrong with Babel, as suggested above?
To me, the syntax is a bit tiresome for inline calls,
call_<name>[<inside header arguments>](<arguments>)[<end header arguments>]
You almost always have to tweak the header arguments to get it to work
properly. E.g. I think it prints return values as code by default
(e.g. "=ยท=").
I wonder if we could allow remote editing of macros like with table
formulas.
Rasmus
--
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer