[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 2/2] ox-texinfo: Define definition commands using description
From: |
Jonas Bernoulli |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 2/2] ox-texinfo: Define definition commands using description lists |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Dec 2021 19:05:07 +0100 |
Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> There's a mismatch between the keys.
Fixed.
> Simply put:
>
> Command in parenthesis, as done above, is optional.
Done.
>> +Regardless of which approach you use, you must define the =kbd= macro
>> +(see [[*Macro Replacement]]), which you can then use anywhere in the Org
>> +file:
>> +
>> +#+begin_example
>> +,#+macro: kbd (eval (let ((case-fold-search nil) (regexp (regexp-opt
>> '("SPC" "RET" "LFD" "TAB" "BS" "ESC" "DELETE" "SHIFT" "Ctrl" "Meta" "Alt"
>> "Cmd" "Super" "UP" "LEFT" "RIGHT" "DOWN") 'words))) (format
>> "@@texinfo:@kbd{@@%s@@texinfo:}@@" (replace-regexp-in-string regexp
>> "@@texinfo:@key{@@\\&@@texinfo:}@@" $1 t))))
>> #+end_example
>
> Ouch. I don't think we should expect users to define this in order to
> use the feature being implemented. IOW, it should work out of the box.
Luckily that's already how it works; I just chose to not document the
fallback (done that now). If the macro is not available, then @code{}
is used instead.
> I think the functions responsible for generating the Texinfo code should
> handle this without relying on the macro.
I tried but could not get it to work that way. Whatever I tried
ox-texinfo insisted on breaking it by adding quotes.
I didn't go as far as to try injecting export-snippet elements into the
tree because without using org-macro-replace-all it seemed painful to do
that. But on second thought...
Would it be okay to represent e.g. "C-c SPC" as:
(export-snippet
(:back-end "texinfo" :value "@kbd{C-c @key{SPC}}" :post-blank 0 :parent #2))
instead of the more painful to construct:
(export-snippet
(:back-end "texinfo" :value "@kbd{" :begin 317 :end 334 :post-blank 0
:parent #2))
#("C-c " 0 4
(:parent #2))
(export-snippet
(:back-end "texinfo" :value "@key{" :begin 338 :end 355 :post-blank 0
:parent #2))
#("SPC" 0 3
(:parent #2))
(export-snippet
(:back-end "texinfo" :value "}" :begin 358 :end 371 :post-blank 0 :parent
#2))
(export-snippet
(:back-end "texinfo" :value "}" :begin 371 :end 384 :post-blank 0 :parent
#2))
> Of course, if that part is
> factored out, the macro might, in turn, make use of it.
>> +(defconst org-texinfo--definition-command-regexp
>> + (format "\\`%s: \\(.+\\)"
>> + (regexp-opt
>> + (delq nil (mapcar #'cdr org-texinfo--definition-command-alist))
>> + 1))
>
> What is 1 meaning here? Do you mean t?
Yes. Done.
>> +(defun org-texinfo--separate-definitions (tree _backend info)
>> + "Split up descriptive lists that contain Texinfo definition
>> commands."
>
> You need to document the arguments.
>> + (org-element-map tree 'plain-list
>> + (lambda (plain-list)
>> + (when (eq (org-element-property :type plain-list) 'descriptive)
>> + (let ((contents (org-element-contents plain-list))
>> + item items)
>
> Nitpick: (items nil)
Done.
>> + (while (setq item (pop contents))
>
> nitpick: Use dolist.
Err, that's what I would usually do. Not sure why not here.
Done.
>> + (if (string-match " +(\\([^()]+\\)) *\\'" args)
>
> Could you use `rx' here?
Done.
(Not a fan personally. IMO rx is less readable than a plain old
regexp, though that's probably just because I never took the time
to retrain myself.)
>> + (setq key (substring args 0 (match-beginning 0))
>> + cmd (match-string 1 args))
>> + (setq key args))
>> + (org-element-put-property
>> + item :tag
>> + (nconc (if (assoc "kbd" org-macro-templates)
>> + (let ((templates org-macro-templates))
>> + (with-temp-buffer
>> + (insert (format "{{{kbd(%s)}}}" key))
>
> Here, there could be a function building the key chord, and you could
> wrap the result into a raw string (see `org-export-raw-string').
I think that is one of the things I tried that ox-texinfo insisted on
quoting anyway. I might misremember, so I will have another look.
Above I suggested using an `export-snippet' element (instead of `raw');
to me that seems appropriate too.
Cheers,
Jonas