From: Jens Schmidt <jschmidt4gnu@vodafonemail.de>
To: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>, Samuel Loury <konubinix@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Quoting property names in tag/property matches [Was: [BUG?] Matching tags: & operator no more implicit between tags and special property]
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:48:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2937cbf6-4ee7-0bdc-b585-d74c9d80883b@vodafonemail.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874jklhqw2.fsf@localhost>
On 2023-08-27 09:43, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Samuel Loury <konubinix@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> IMHO, "-tag&-todo=TODO" is totally ok. I even imagine we could say that
>> & and | are forbidden to say anything else than AND and OR and people
>> would be ok with that.
>
> Actually, explicit & or | might be an easier way to not worry about
> escaping things. Except escaping & or | themselves.
> It might be the preferred way to put into the manual.
>
>> IOW, I wonder of the time and effort to deal with optional & is worth
>> it. WDYT?
>
> We cannot remove the optionality of &, because doing so will break
> existing user setups. But we can certainly change our recommendations in
> the manual.
>
> Though pure tag matcher makes more sense with implicit &:
> +tag1-tag2+tag3... vs +tag1&-tag2&+tag3
> Especially in the interactive agenda filters.
I feel it's a bit hard to reply to this message in the right places, so
I'll do a plain bottom post, sorry.
TL;DR:
- I think we cannot make "&" mandatory because of backward compatibility.
- Even if we made "&" mandatory, it would not really solve the quoting
problem, since the parser is rather hacky and other quoting and
context issues would still be there.
- But then I cannot see any real reason why we should recommend using
"&" in the manual.
- Finally, we should hope for and work towards a "real parser", as Ihor
has mentioned already in a previous post:
(beginning of thread)
https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/9132e58f-d89e-f7df-bbe4-43d53a2367d2@vodafonemail.de/
(mentioning of peg)
https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/87wmyendr7.fsf@localhost/
Details, as far as still required:
The whole tag/property query parser seems to have a long tradition. For
example, there is still that TODO-state special case that allows for
queries like this (example ripped from the manual):
work/WAITING
Same as work+TODO="WAITING"
So people *have* been worrying about a) query brevity and b) backward
compatibility, and I think we should do so as well.
Then the current parser is horribly ad-hoc-ish and, as a plain
regexp-based parser, context insensitive. For example, a tag regexp
match
{regexp}
is matched simply as
{[^}]+}
that is, you have no chance whatsoever to quote the closing curly
parenthesis. Likewise for double-quoted strings.
In other words, even if we make | or & mandatory, there will still
remain a lot of ambiguities stemming from the rest of the parser. And
I'm too lazy to think about how we could quote & in that whole picture.
(| is sort of handled already, but again in a completely
context-insensitive way.)
This all calls for a proper parser, based on peg or bovine or whatever.
Hopefully that parser would still keep backward compatibility, but
that's probably wishful thinking.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-01 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-23 7:57 [BUG?] Matching tags: & operator no more implicit between tags and special property Samuel Loury
2023-08-23 10:21 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-23 10:37 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-23 10:31 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-23 10:38 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-23 14:00 ` [RFC] Quoting property names in tag/property matches [Was: [BUG?] Matching tags: & operator no more implicit between tags and special property] Jens Schmidt
2023-08-23 15:55 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-24 7:30 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-24 7:32 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-24 8:52 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-25 18:46 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-26 10:16 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-26 11:53 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-26 12:00 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-26 12:19 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-26 12:22 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-26 12:54 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-08-27 7:11 ` Samuel Loury
2023-08-27 7:43 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-09-01 16:48 ` Jens Schmidt [this message]
2023-09-01 23:59 ` Tom Gillespie
2023-09-02 0:02 ` Tom Gillespie
2023-09-02 7:10 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-09-02 13:14 ` Redoing the current tag/property parser in a real grammar [was: Re: [RFC] Quoting property names in tag/property matches] Jens Schmidt
2023-09-03 7:04 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-09-02 13:18 ` [RFC] Quoting property names in tag/property matches Jens Schmidt
2023-08-30 16:28 ` [RFC] Quoting property names in tag/property matches [Was: [BUG?] Matching tags: & operator no more implicit between tags and special property] Jens Schmidt
2023-08-31 8:08 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-08-31 10:24 ` Jens Schmidt
2023-09-03 6:53 ` Ihor Radchenko
2023-09-03 9:25 ` Jens Schmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2937cbf6-4ee7-0bdc-b585-d74c9d80883b@vodafonemail.de \
--to=jschmidt4gnu@vodafonemail.de \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=konubinix@gmail.com \
--cc=yantar92@posteo.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.