Re: [DISCUSSION] Refactoring fontification system

[Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>]

On 08/06/2022 11:23, Tom Gillespie wrote:
>> As for lang parameter support in example blocks, would you mind creating
>> a separate feature request thread? Extending export blocks export will
>> require changing in parser syntax and thus should be discussed carefully
>> in a separate thread.
> 
> I would strongly caution against allowing an optional #+begin_example lang
> syntax. It will lead to extreme confusion, even when users know to use org-lint.
> The reason for this is that example blocks do not have (and frankly should not
> have) full org-babel support. Babel is already complex enough as is without
> having to explain to a user that yes they can noweb an example block into
> a src block, but that they cannot noweb a source block into an example block.

My expectation is that treating #+begin_example almost as #+begin_src 
will simplify code. E.g. `org-latex-src-block' has a fallback to plain 
\begin{verbatim} if language is unknown or is not specified, so it may 
handle examples as well. The difference is that for #+begin_example 
evaluation and noweb are disabled, either it is hardcoded (my 
preference) or default values for :noweb and :eval header argument are 
adjusted.

On 09/06/2022 12:37, Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez wrote:
> OK, just to add to the discussion. The original intent of my message was
> to give _me_ control over what I want to colour, not delegating that to
> the fontifying engine in Emacs.
> 
> I need limited and controlled colouring for text-books and lab manuals
> where colouring elements of a listing goes against the publishing
> standards. I only need custom colouring to "emulate" terminal output,
> not for the code as such. And I could do that with the #+ATTR: if supported.

Fontification and an attribute to specify an option for environment are 
independent features. My point is that if example and src blocks reused 
the same code than it would be enough to implement :options attribute 
(similar to #+begin_quote) once and both types of blocks would be more 
flexible.

If #+begin_example becomes more dumb, unsure if it is reasonable to 
allow to generate "\begin{verbatim}[commandchars=\\\{\}]" for example 
block but not for source blocks.

Side note: I can not say that #+begin_example with language is widely 
used, but one case may be found in org-manual.org and a dozen in worg.