Re: [RFC] Remove Org Struct mode

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@uva.nl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3345 bytes --]

Hi Nicolas,

I have not problems with removing orgstruct-mode, it is indeed a bad hack
and I am no longer using it.

I am glad you are not planning to remove orgtbl-mode.  In particular, in
connection with radio tables, it is a feature that I use constantly, so I
would object strongly to removing it.

Carsten

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to remove Org Struct minor mode from Org code base. Here is
> the rationale:
>
> 1. It is broken. It might look like using Org in another buffer, but it
>    is not. In particular, it just cannot cope with lists, indentation,
>    filling in, e.g., Message mode, as soon as we try something
>    non-trivial. Really, that's a poor-man's Org mode.
>
> 2. Its implementation is very hackish. In particular, it is not modular
>    at all. It rewrites some core functions according to the major mode
>    in use. For example `org-fill-function' tries to handle specially
>    text in a Message mode buffer, basically short-circuiting regular
>    behaviour. There no support for other major modes. If we want some,
>    we need to hard-code it.
>
> 3. Due to previous point, some basic Org functions are sub-optimal
>    because they preserve compatibility with Org Struct mode. For example
>    `org-forward-heading-same-level' must process every headline past the
>    current one and check their level until an appropriate one is found.
>    It would be faster to go looking for the next headline according to
>    the number of stars we want.
>
> 4. It is somewhat outside Org mode's scope to provide such a feature. It
>    is tempting to provide everything we can think of, but we should
>    focus on the main task: handle Org files, i.e., files written in Org
>    compatible syntax.
>
> 5. There are alternatives. E.g., outshine.el, outline-minor-mode, ...
>
> I _do_ use `orgstruct++-mode'. But it is broken beyond repair.
> Alternatives, which do not need to pay a technical debt, are certainly
> better, or, at least, a saner ground for improvement.
>
> I'm not opposed to an Org struct mode living in ELPA. But, as pointed
> out, it is difficult to extract from code base without rewriting it
> completely. If alternatives are serious enough, that would be
> re-inventing the wheel, too.
>
> The only thing that would be missing, AFAIK, is plain list handling.
> However, I'm quite certain it is possible to re-use most code from
> "org-list.el", using a dumbed down `org-list-struct' function. Indeed,
> currently, `org-list-struct' requires to know about inlinetasks,
> drawers, blocks... i.e., most of the Org syntax. This is not an option
> in foreign buffers. Once `org-list-struct' (and maybe `org-in-item-p')
> are simplified, other functions in "org-list.el" can be used as is.
>
> I'm not talking about OrgTbl mode (yet). OrgTbl mode is different: it
> doesn't suffer from points 1, 3 end 5. It is easier to extract it as an
> external library, which someone should ultimately do.
>
> To sum it up, I offer to remove `orgstruct-mode' (and
> `orgstruct++-mode') from the code base. I can also offer my help to
> anyone willing to extract some `list-minor-mode' and `table-minor-mode'
> from Org.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou                                                0x80A93738
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4135 bytes --]