From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PARSER] Why not add properties to type 'org-data'?
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:14:56 +0200
Message-ID: <87zjrrytan.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87y57be0zv.fsf@gmail.com>
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]:45730)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VHf0z-0007kp-GP
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:14:55 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VHf0t-0000kE-Gq
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:14:49 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]:50198)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VHf0t-0000k2-9P
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:14:43 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cb5so2254869wib.10
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87y57be0zv.fsf@gmail.com> (Thorsten Jolitz's message of "Thu, 05
	Sep 2013 17:34:12 +0200")
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: Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:

> Wouldn't it make sense to replace 
>
> ,----------------------------------------------
> | (org-data nil (section (:begin 1 :end 52 ...)))
> `----------------------------------------------
>
> with something like
>
> ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | (org-data (:id-or-name file001 :input-file /my/file.org :author me :date
> | 01-01-2013 :description my planning data) (section (:begin 1 :end 52
> | ...)))
> `-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ?

This is way beyond parser's attributions. For example, getting the right
date means that every SETUPFILE keyword should be inspected. INCLUDE
keywords too. And some macros could get expanded in the process.

Also keep in mind that some keywords, e.g. DESCRIPTION, are defined and
made special at the export framework level (see
`org-export-options-alist'). There are just regular keywords to the
parser. IOW, for the parser, there is no difference between

  #+DESRCIPTION: something

and

  #+FOO: something

At one point, I thought about combining parse tree and information
channel, much like what you're suggesting, but in `ox.el'. It would give
something like an "Org closure" wrapping both contents and environment
together.

But I discarded that idea, as it was very artificial: the minute the
closure was created, it was splitted again so it could get processed.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou