Re: [POLL] Should we accept breaking changes to get rid of Org libraries that perform side effects when loading?

[Russell Adams <RLAdams@adamsinfoserv.com>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 01:04:10PM +0000, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Russell Adams <RLAdams@adamsinfoserv.com> writes:
> We might. Adding gazillion of stars is not conceptually different from
> adding a spacial cookie.

True. Just cleaner.

> The only extra thing required is some way to mark inlinetask ending,
> because we must be able to continue the containing section below
> inlinetask:
>
> * [#inline] Inlinetask
> * [#inline] END

I think the multiline aspect is where the concept breaks down.

"I want a special invisible heading inside the content of a heading,
that also supports optional multiline contents". Sounds horrible to code.

> > Shouldn't this be excluded from core and supplied by someone's custom
> > plugin if they want this ability? Org-mode should focus on the
> > headings and their data, and if you need to hack in some extra syntax
> > perhaps Org doesn't need to concern itself.
>
> Because it will be feature regression.
> And it will not be possible with a custom plugin without significant
> changes in how all the headline editing commands, agenda, sparse trees,
> etc work - they all assume very specific heading syntax.

Regressions are not the end of the world. Org does too much and grew
very fast, which is not sustainable.

There were other mails in this thread that agreed this might be an ill
conceived feature hack.

Given limited maintainer time, culling bad features is a fact of life.

My recommendation is cut it out, until someone with more time can make
a rational and compelling case for a clean syntax that isn't a huge
special case or write a separate module.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com
                                    https://www.adamsinfoserv.com/