Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax

[TEC]

Tom Gillespie <tgbugs@gmail.com> writes:

> Any support for something like this would need to retain 
> backward
> compatibility as well to avoid older versions reformatting the 
> tables
> due to e.g. the presence of a double pipe. I also think that 
> extending
> the table syntax in ways that makes it more complex than it 
> already
> is, will be a non-starter.

I am also concerned with avoiding disrupting previous table. I 
think
that non-space double+ pipes should be alright (hence their part 
in my
suggestion) as it still maintains that the number of columns is 
equal to
the number of pipes. E.g. currently
|| a    | b | = 3 columns, and is reformatted to |  | a | b |
proposal
|| a    | b | = 2 cells, 2+1=3 columns (same)

> Thus, an alternate but more likely approach
> would be to allow specification of what cells to merge outside 
> the
> table as is done for formulas. It is not elegant, but it would 
> be a
> layer on top of existing syntax, and it would allow the 
> fundamental
> structure of the table to remain the same -- rows of cells. For
> example #+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-3$1 or something like that. Thoughts?
> Tom

I like how this seems to address the issue while keeping backwards
compatibility, but I have two big concerns:
1. I think this could make it hard to see which cells are 
'masked' by a
merge at a glance, and would make associated errors easy
2. I think that for say a table with 2-3 large sub-sections this 
could
lead to problematic formating.

Regarding 2, E.g. (content and form made up on the spot)

| Powerpoint | Voltage ripple while drawing 2A continuous load 
 over Xs |    |     |     |     | Current ripple while drawing 
 24V continuous load over Xs |    |    |     |    |     |
|            | 
1s | 5s | 10s | 20s | 30s | 
1s | 2s | 5s | 10s | 20 | 30s |
|------------+---------------------------------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+----------------------------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+-----|
| Kitchen    | 
 3% | 2% |  3% |  1% |  2% | 
 1% | 4% | 3% |  5% | 3% |  2% |
| Bedroom    | 
 1% | 2% |  1% |  2% |  1% | 
 2% | 1% | 1% |  1% | 2% |  1% |
#+TBLCELLMERGE: @2-6$1,@7-11$1

vs.

| Powerpoint ||||| Voltage ripple while drawing 2A continuous load 
 over Xs |||||| Current ripple while drawing 24V continuous load 
 over Xs |
|            | 1s | 5s | 10s | 20s | 30s 
              | 1s | 2s | 5s | 10s | 20 | 30s 
              |
|------------+----+----+-----+-----+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+----+-------------------------------------|
| Kitchen    | 3% | 2% |  3% |  1% |  2% 
 | 1% | 4% | 3% |  5% | 3% |  2% 
 |
| Bedroom    | 1% | 2% |  1% |  2% |  1% 
 | 2% | 1% | 1% |  1% | 2% |  1% 
 |

(NB: clearer without line wrapping, more concise examples 
definitely
available if I thought about it a tad more)

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a pretty major 'feature request', but I think also an
> > important
> > one.
> >
> > When developing large tables, it can often be /necessary/ to 
> > start
> > using
> > multi-column/row cells for clarity, and sensible exporting
> > results.
> >
> > As far as I am aware, in Org does not currently have any
> > multi-col/row
> > syntax. The only viable method seems to be re-implementing the
> > table
> > using export blocks in every backend you may want to export to 
> > (in
> > my
> > case, usually TeX + HTML). This is clumsy, difficult to work 
> > with,
> > and
> > could be avoided should org gain support for multi-col/row 
> > syntax.
> >
> > I appreciate that this would constitute a major change both the
> > Org's
> > syntax and the codebase, but I believe such a change is 
> > warranted
> > by the
> > advantages it would provide.
> >
> > Both how this can be implemented while minimising/eliminating 
> > the
> > chance
> > of breaking well-formed current table elements, and what syntax
> > may be
> > both acceptable and seem sensible to use.
> >
> > I would anticipate such a feature working by designating two
> > characters
> > to indicate "add row" and "add column". For example "|" and 
> > "-".
> > These
> > characters would take affect when /immediately following/ (no
> > space) a
> > cell separator ("|"), and designate the dimensions of the top
> > right cell.
> >
> > Example:
> > | a | b | c |
> > |---+---+---|
> > | a | - | | |
> > | - | b | . |
> > | . | | | c |
> >
> > Would be interpreted just as any current table is.
> >
> > However,
> >
> > | hello | there | you  |
> > |-------+-------+------|
> > || two column   | cell |
> >
> > Contains a 2x1 cell.
> >
> > | a little | test |
> > |----------+------|
> > |- hello   | hi   |
> > | two row  | you  |
> >
> > Contains a 1x2 cell. In a more complex example:
> >
> > | a | b | c |
> > |---+---+---|
> > ||-- hi | a |
> > | two x | . |
> > | three | b |
> > | c | - | . |
> >
> > Contains a 2x3 cell.
> >
> > This is just the first syntax that comes to mind, but hopefully
> > the
> > general form of this idea seems viable.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Timothy.