Re: [new exporter] 2 questions

[Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>]

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>> IMO the parser already DTRT. In which case do you think it doesn't?

> DTRT is what you define as DTRT, so yes it does that already. At the
> very least it would be nice if the parser warned when it finds stray
> syntax pieces that are missing their match (it took me quite a while
> to see what was going on). If I look at the buffer I see things
> differently than the parser, 

The parser parses Org syntax. If you see something else, unless there is
an obvious bug, then you are expecting the Org syntax to be different
from what it is. It's even the goal of the parser: to define the way to
read Org syntax.

Actually it is very simple to understand: elements have precedence over
objects. So in the following case:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
xxxx xxxx x x xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx
x xxxx xx xx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx x xx x x xx 
- item 1
- item 2
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

there's a paragraph followed by a plain list, no matter what is found
within the paragraph.

And it's still the case when we replace "x" with tricky contents like:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

Some paragraph, something that looks like a link start [[#eisetu][and
something that looks like a math snippet \(2 + 3
- item 1
- item 2
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> so some way to ask what the parser thinks I'm looking at would be nice
> (maybe that exists already, I don't know).

Usually fontification is a good indicator. Unfortunately, Org
fontification doesn't rely on the parser at the moment, so there are
some discrepancies.

Also, you're thinking backwards here: the parser doesn't have to think
about what you're looking at, as it knows it. Alas it can't know what
you're thinking you're looking at.

Anyway you can use (org-element-context) to know where point currently
is.

> And in all these cases where something inside an object or an element
> looks like it might be another element or greater element, we do need
> a way of quoting, I'd say.

No element can be found within an object.

So far, I don't see a need for quoting. In your previous example, you
know (or should know) that "- " as the first non-white string in a line
defines an item. You keep wanting to see a mathematical operation,
probably because you're focused on the LaTeX snippet you're writing, but
you're wrong wrt Org syntax.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou