Re: Is the cascading logic of outlines a feature, or a design bug?

[Stefan Nobis <stefan-ml@snobis.de>]

abq@bitrot.link writes:

> Likewise, is the inability to close an org-mode outline section
> without starting a new section really a feature?

I think so. :)

First, technically, it makes the sections (and their contents) a tree
instead of a graph (DAG) and trees are easier to understand and
handle. As sections are a quite essential and important data structure
of Org, it usually means that it would be hard to change it (meaning
that it could affect a really big part of the code base).

Another rather technical point is, that most export formats like HTML
and LaTeX/PDF are also tree like structures (regarding sections).
Therefore it is quite a challenge to export a DAG like structure to
these formats.

But also semantically I would say it is a feature. Have you ever seen
a book, longer web page, or even article (with multiple sections) that
tries to close one section and continue any previous sibling or its
parent? I have never seen such kind of textual structuring and my
guess is, that this would be hard for a reader to understand and
follow. If the intermediate text is small, just make it a list (maybe
a description list). If a new (sub-)section seems a good idea, then
structure everything accordingly and tree-like. For example:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

    * Topic
    Some initial words.
    ** Subtopic 1
    More text.
    ** Subtopic 2
    Another paragraph.
    ** Other Aspects
    There may be more to say.

--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

IMHO there is always a way to structure sections, such that a tree
like structure suffices. And IMHO this is easier to read an follow.

If you try to use Org for other kinds of data and this data is
naturally structured like a DAG (or even a cyclic graph), then I think
a database or other means are better suited than Org.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.