Re: [O] [RFC] Sloppy `org-element-context'?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:

> Would it make sense to make it optional?

I thought about it. But adding an optional argument to determine if
`org-element-context' should be strict or sloppy doesn't help in
practice, since one will probably often wonder if he needs to switch to
sloppy mode or not.

Also, `org-element-context' is not needed for parsing a buffer (with
`org-element-parse-buffer'). Thus, strict behaviour is not mandatory.

> I haven't seen this discussion.  I looked briefly at the suggested
> patch; I don't understand why it would be necessary or desirable.  But
> I will not rule out that I have yet to consider the correct case!

For example, one may write

  :PROPERTIES:
  :SOME_LINK: [[my-link:destination]]
  :END:

and expect C-c C-o to open the link in the properties drawer. I can see
the practical use, but not at the syntax level, which defines it as
a plain string. Indeed, this can get worse:

  :PROPERTIES:
  :REMEMBER: <2014-03-28 Fri>
  :END:

introduces a timestamp hidden to the user but not to the agenda.

> As a hacker (not quite a developer!), I do at time desire more
> flexibility with org-context to temporarily evaluating an element
> under alternative assumptions of its properties.  A recent example
> evaluate $x^{z}$ as-if it isn't a latex-fragment.

I think this would go too far. Considering $x^{z}$ as anything else than
a latex fragment is not a good idea. What is the next step? Should the
snippet $a =b \qquad c= d$ be seen as strike-through?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou