emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Omit file description when :file-desc has nil value


From: Kyle Meyer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit file description when :file-desc has nil value
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 00:19:36 -0400

Hi Matt,

It looks like this message got detached from the original thread [*] and
ended up a bit misformatted (at least for plain-text readers).  This
seems to be the message you accidentally sent to me off-list, so I will
copy my reply here as well.

  [*] 87tuwef76g.fsf@kyleam.com">https://orgmode.org/list/87tuwef76g.fsf@kyleam.com

Matt Huszagh writes:

> Thanks for the reply, Kyle, and thanks for pointing me to that thread. I
> understand that this would break existing functionality, but I think my
> solution makes more sense. For one, I think that the current
> implementation is a bit confusing. More importantly though, it makes it
> impossible to both provide a default value for :file-desc and omit it in
> some cases. The benefit (as mentioned in that thread) is that in those
> select cases, the same argument would not need to be provided twice. I
> think the cost of the current functionality outweighs the benefit. What
> are your thoughts?

I also don't find the current behavior particularly intuitive.  (I'm
also not really a babel user, so my opinion probably shouldn't count for
much.)  If we were adding it today, I think what you describe would be
better, but, as you mention, breakage also now also weighs against
making a change here.

In any case, I'd suggest raising the discussion on the list after the
9.4 release.

>> Right, to reflect the current behavior established as a result of the
>> above thread, I think that should be reworded to distinguish between an
>> absent :file-desc header and one with no argument.  Sorry for not
>> catching that when reviewing your initial patch.
>
> No worries, and I agree the documentation should be updated. I'm happy
> to provide the patch myself, but I'd like to talk through whether the
> current implementation is the correct one before I do.

Thanks.  To avoid any confusion coming from this description making it
into the 9.4 release, I've updated it in 4b2123fb7.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]