Re: Proposal: 'executable' org-capture-templaes

[Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

>>> The above statement is a hint that patches are welcome :)
>>
>> As said, I am not that well familiar with org in-depth, and with other places
>> that might need to be factored out, so I don't promise anything. Initially I
>> just got a quick idea while working on a project of mine with org-capture, and
>> hacked the 'org-capture' function to implement my idea :).
>
> Feel free at ask anything if you encounter difficulties. It is not
> always trivial to convert something that works for you personally into
> something suitable for all the people using Org.

Hello again; I have been playing with this, and so far the biggest problem is
that I get too many ideas as longer I refactor the existing code :).

However, I have a question: would it be acceptable for org-capture to change the
input model?

I have implemented more flexible replacement for org-mks, and refactored it out
of org-mode under new nick 'quick-menu' to indicate that it does not pull any of
org mode with it. I have one implementation based on "read-key" function from
org-macs and used in original org-mks. A proptotype works, but I am not done
completely.

However before I continue, I am thinking of ditching the 'read-key' completely
and switching to "standard" Emacs way of implementing interactivity via mode and
mode-map. I am currently playing with such implementation, which to me appears
both simpler (code reduction) and more flexible, but it does change the mental
model of how clients of org-mks are used, for example org-capture.

I don't think it should be a deal-breaker, but that is my personal opinion, so I
would like to hear if that change would be acceptable or not?