From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id hXbSEmDNjWDcKQEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 23:51:28 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id 0PLtDWDNjWAHUAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 21:51:28 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F04C1ABC6 for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 23:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:47898 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxWH-00088O-JB for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 17:51:25 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43774) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxVJ-00086M-1a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 17:50:25 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:39133) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxVG-0005Sb-CL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 17:50:24 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7404240027 for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 23:50:18 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1619905818; bh=jeOIth49q04nx60tP12avucuHt4esa70Dup/Wt7+OLE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=myrCubTokRpKph/fhcvY8ANOt994r5a/I89vwUzRzchpclLbbEO4bhq1RjMHwSr/m NFpEof/ngKYD6b/5lgtvu0Qxq4U6jZ77toBahJvatqlVxaOyWfl7/IUQdFhWhUTfY6 Z1r0C+8K36mTfTBL8EuYnvskwS/pHzspyzAsT0pobKuiNRb2OEzRX/FdycBqy1gRi6 RhlnJV9DkDW+u6flzvJLxpBgdzzTtKs7B1rw+9Wj1iJnYSAP+UlIUdJzkG6LRn9iLl ILplMpEBP8YDzvCi2VgazCxWh4UDogvGExWCldS2tZ+atxiqxizyPBJJLoFk+XC32L 3vgnFq+mO0/Ng== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FXjZx6jsbz9rxM; Sat, 1 May 2021 23:50:17 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Juan_Manuel_Mac=C3=ADas?= To: Nicolas Goaziou , Bastien Subject: Re: [PATCH] Possibility of using alternative separators in macros References: <87wnsjx5rs.fsf@posteo.net> <87o8duyhxr.fsf@bzg.fr> <87sg36u5wa.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 21:50:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87sg36u5wa.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sat, 01 May 2021 12:04:21 +0200") Message-ID: <87k0oinmy2.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=maciaschain@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: orgmode Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619905887; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=HnCxUQKQ+3VHJBYABWhVwkQFeZQByuAWWwcwEo2WxOw=; b=juWTrls/h2dyROLEtWOKbH7hmHxQZY16ncplGFLMaKNZBl3odxAlj3I6gDRne8vsZIVa99 Ol4RfowoBn+UDZsDxqJFXzN/bS4T0FiG7hBbhmMM+82nGVaJvCpcUOi3cQ2JDFcM22Cnyo auuCxyjUnM7iDSTrjPPihHbqh/rJtOr3JJt9lv9OT1VjL/1wSUC+zsPTUAkukbt2ZhVea4 rZas3QtcbMPXKsOqnlS0ZkxMlMww+TapOoI33ipsKsLqFWdhKznsOtQo8xHuNiev9QqrnB bkrGQfs0sdU0JaO/v6RDjHozBhnFSO9lT+h8rpxGBe0iMDGncS5z9fEHZTHIUQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619905887; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=iyC2POHbJRql9Ofle6namqgmfI4Swm4MBGNBv6Z3G0S+TfTb9IKllS+l9UTax2vMlTApFd BEpsLRFw4KQLQzlxKk0MAKhpT39RUVSuY+6WwC/Vi5ByJ2i+WycXqM5fAoxGqadzGp7BIs kIA1iqFEzTgRkdKMGIEdQENRR4Izksw+CEvSw151mirL3jggAF9u8uhW4MfL9kcWo4ruo7 9AXZxmmmwiQCRWykMfrzL8RxmVEl0scsWu+25oSiuLRhc5r3SESVD3d+E2e88Xs32hvRNi IVvLJzIAohTN3CA6Tb2l8fthZ1YA7vWjOWLGNCWLwxwx27VE0CZt0EMsNY6ZxA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=myrCubTo; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.16 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=myrCubTo; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 6F04C1ABC6 X-Spam-Score: -3.16 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: MmTjEvec9w/T Hi all, Thanks for your comments, Bastien and Nicolas. I think macros can work out of the box as a perfect 'backend' for those LaTeX commands that include at least one argument with textual content. In my case they are very useful to 'extend' the markup language. Apart from the LaTeX example that I put previously (\foreignlanguage{lang}{short-text}), there are commands like \textsc{text in small caps}, \textcolor{color}{text}, and so on. When one of the arguments consists of textual content, even if it is a short text, it can be tedious to escape constantly commas[1]. Anyway, I understand that my use case may not be that of the rest of the users, and what is a 'problem' for me, it may not be seen as a problem by other users; therefore, I fully understand Bastien's warnings about making a modification to something that already works fine, and has been working fine since always. Nicolas's suggestion seemed the most reasonable, or the least destructive, in the hypothetical scenario that there would be a great demand among users of an alternative separator. Now I see unlikely, however, that such a demand exists ;-) So, if my use case is a minority, of course I agree with give up this proposal... [1] To mitigate 'comma issue' I wrote a function that escapes commas when saving document :-D Best regards, Juan Manuel=20 Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Bastien writes: > >> thank you for the patch. I understand the general idea, but I think >> we should be careful not to overload the macro syntax - escaping the >> coma seems okay to me. I'm closing this suggestion. >> >> I'm cc'ing Nicolas: if he thinks it's a useful addition, I won't of >> course insist on rejecting it. > > This is a followup to a previous discussion in this mailing list, in > which Juan Manuel explained his use-case for a different argument > separator in macros. I noticed then that there was an opening for > a backward compatible syntax extension for it. As I was also not certain > it would be a good idea overall, I suggested him to start a new, more > visible, thread with the proposal, and collect feedback. > > So, maybe it is a bit early to close it. > > BTW, I would like to amend the proposed syntax, so as to limit friction > with the rest of Org. What would be more reasonable is the following: > > {{{macroname=C2=B7(...)}}} > > where =C2=B7 is either nothing or a _single_ printable non-alphanumeric > non-space non-parenthesis character that isn't already meaningful in > Org. For example, if for some reason, we limit ourselves to ASCII > characters only, the set of allowed separators would be: > > ! % & , ; ? ` > > So, again, I'm not saying we should do this. TBH, I'm not convinced by > the idea of duplicate syntax (comma-escaping and alternate characters) > for the same thing. But hard-core macro users may have a word to say > about it. > > WDYT? > > Regards,