From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [feature request] More flexible repeats
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:20:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJcAo8uGjPzqBkwUMo+nFd=stWx9p=tdZp42i=J1+xYN_ipCEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m2y5xeud1f.fsf@boostpro.com> <m2ipoikx6a.fsf@gmail.com>
	<m262kirpkc.fsf@boostpro.com> <87ipoiotee.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net>
	<m2zkhuq6e7.fsf@boostpro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50093)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1R7WqU-0001Pf-C8
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:21:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1R7WqI-0003C1-T4
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:20:57 -0400
Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:45915)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1R7WqI-0003AT-N0
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:20:50 -0400
Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so344498gxk.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m2zkhuq6e7.fsf@boostpro.com>
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: </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: Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

On 2011-09-24, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
> Good point.  I don't need a fancy syntax if I can express it with elisp,
> of course.  Maybe enabling that would be a good first step.

Agreed here also that fancy syntax is not necessary.

IMO a good goal is actually to reduce syntax for new features rather
than increase it.  If new syntax is contemplated, extensible syntax (a
specific proposal for a universal syntax that significantly reduces
parsing risk and does not require the user to try to look up the
meanings of symbols) might be useful.