Re: [RFC] Remove Org Struct mode

["numbchild@gmail.com" <numbchild@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4259 bytes --]

I agree too, because the OrgStruct mode functions is so limited for basic
Org-mode viewing/editing/navigating etc.

[stardiviner]           <Hack this world!>      GPG key ID: 47C32433
IRC(freeenode): stardiviner                     Twitter:  @numbchild
Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36  CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433
Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> One of the reasons I moved to using mu4e for email was because I was
> told I could use orgStruct mode and write my email using org structured
> editing.
>
> The reality has been somewhat disappointing. One of the main things I
> wanted was better handling of lists and this is one area of orgstruct
> mode which certainly doesn't work correctly.
>
> So, given what you say and the fact the mode isn't working as
> advertised, I tend to agree. Just adding a note to my org task list to
> look at outshine.el, which I wasn't aware of. If I really need org
> structural editing for writing an email, I'll write it in an org-mode
> file and then transfer it to a message buffer - as you point out, there
> is lots in org mode which makes no sense in an email buffer anyway!
>
> Tim
>
> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>
> > 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,
>
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5593 bytes --]