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

[tomas@tuxteam.de]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1513 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 01:29:22PM +0000, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
> 
> >>    <multiple sreens of text>
> >>    <...>
> >
> > Ah... it would be nice if Org could "go up one level",
> > wouldn't it?
> 
> What do you mean?

Not proposing to change anything, Org is what it is. Org's "sections"
are somewhat stepchildren, since the primary structure is the heading.

As a consequence, you "close" a section by "opening" a new one; if
you start a subsection, you can't end it "going back" to the enclosing
section: express this in Org:

  <section heading="Main Section">
    this is some text in the main section
    More text
    <section heading="A Subsection>
      Some text therein
    </section>
    Now we are "back" in the main section
  </section>

(FWIW I cop out of this by declaring that a section name of - means
"going up" like so:

  * Main Section
    this is some text in the main section
    More text
  ** A Subsection
     Some text therein
  * -
    Now we are "back" in the main section

(Note that here, the "-" gets one star, i.e. the level we are going
back to: this way, most things work as they should; and it is not
too hard to hack exporters to do the right thing :)

Back to the case in question: Someone proposed intercalating a
subsection instead of using an inline task, which would work
if there were a way of "closing" that subsection; otherwise the
idea messes with the document structure.

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]