From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Syntax inconsistency?
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:28:30 +0100
Message-ID: <87k33cg029.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <87zjc9dq88.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45782)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XlCzM-0004vT-Qi
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:27:56 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XlCzF-0002uW-2Z
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:27:48 -0500
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::198]:33589)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XlCzE-0002uK-SL
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:27:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87zjc9dq88.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> (Marcin Borkowski's message of
	"Mon, 03 Nov 2014 02:31:35 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl>
Cc: Org-Mode mailing list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Hello,

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> just wondering: on one hand, we have lines like
>
> #+OPTIONS: toc:nil

This is a keyword.

> On the other hand, we have
>
> #+ATTR_ASCII: :width 10

This is an attribute.

> Why is the syntax (seemingly, at least) inconsistent?  Why not
> `width:10' or `:toc nil'?

These are two different things, so there is no real reason to make them
look like each other. Also, and more importantly, moving OPTIONS to the
other syntax is, IMO, unreadable:

  #+OPTIONS: :| t :^ nil :* t :\n t

Note there is also another syntax type, e.g.,:

 #+TOC: headlines 2


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou