Re: [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand templates thru e.g. "<s[TAB]")

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
>> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Again, I may be wrong in thinking disabling this will cause trouble to
>>> many users.  Let's just take a moment to see what users think.
>>
>> It will case trouble during the time necessary to read ORG-NEWS
>> incompatible changes section or ask the mailing list, and then adding
>> (require 'org-tempo) to their configuration file.
>
> I wish I'd be as optimistic as you are and assume every user reads
> ORG-NEWS!  I seriously doubt a majority of users do.  Those installing
> Org from ELPA cannot possibly know where to find ORG-NEWS, Org gives
> no indication where it lives: IOW, it's not even because users are
> lazy or what.
>
>> It seems nonsensical to let Org handle expansion templates. Dedicated
>> packages do it way better than what we provide, and the task is really
>> out of our scope.
>
> I can't remember anybody complaining Org's expansion mechanism.
>
>> Worse, we would provide two different ways to expand blocks /by
>> default/.
>
> I see it differently.  You and Rasmus (and those participating to the
> discussion) cleanly separated two functionalities: one is to *insert*
> templates the other one is to *expand* them.
>
> M-x org-insert-structure-template RET is good for discovery as it lets
> users see what templates are availables and <[KEY][TAB] is good for
> fast inline expansion.
>
> Both complete each other IMO, and both deserve to be in Org's core.
>
> But again, I might be wrong, I just don't want this to be a discussion
> between us two :)

The problem here is two competing objectives. I agree with Nicholas'
position that overall, org should not reproduce/re-invent/duplicate
functionality already provided by Emacs or well established Emacs
packages like ysnippets etc. On the other hand, Bastien's concern
regarding impact on users and basic change management concerns are very
valid.

There is no solution which will make everyone happy. However, as a long
term org user who hopes to continue using org for many more years, I
tend to come down on the side of whatever will make org easier to
maintain in the long term.

I think org itself should provide a very stable core and avoid
incorporating too many add on enhancements. It should be as stable as
possible to encourage others to develop and maintain such enhancements
and extensions. So while some of the changes Nicholas has proposed may
have some short term inconvenience, I agree with his approach and I
agree that if we enable org-tempo by default, we are unlikely to see
people switch and org-tempo will end up being another module needing to
be maintained as part of core.

While the switch will be a little inconvenient for me while I learn to
re-train my fingers, I think what I'm really doing is undoing a bad
habit learned because of the original '<s' expansion. I recall being a
little frustrated when I first started using org that I had to learn
another expansion key binding just for org mode. Consequently, I'm not
going to enable org-tempo, instead going for re-training of my fingers
to use the new C-c ' binding.

I agree with Thomas that adding an org-tempo require is an easy addition
for those who do not have the time/inclination to make the change
immediately. 

So in basic terms, I agree with Nicholas' position. Having said that, I
do feel he is being optimistic/pragmatic and Bastien's concerns are very
valid. I don't think people will read the NEWS file and I do expect we
will see numerous posts about org templates not working. However, this
should only be a short term bit of pain and I don't see it can be
avoided. The tempo solution will go a long way to reduce that pain for
those who don't have time to deal with the change right now. Most
reasonable people will understand why this change is occurring provided
we can make the rationale clear and easy to find, so information on the
org web site, to relevant mail lists and any other forum would be a good
idea.

Tim


--
Tim Cross