Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: > Tyler Grinn <tylergr...@gmail.com> writes: > >> John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >> >>> I like the variable idea. I would make it a concatenation string for >>> joining. That way “” would concatenate the way Tyler wants, “ “ would >>> preserve current behavior, and “,” could lead to a comma separated >>> list for example. Other things like “\n” might lead to a column, etc. >> >> I'm not a huge fan of the variable idea because it would make it >> impossible to include both behaviors in a single file, whereas extending >> the syntax maintains any existing properties that used '+'. > > I think I need to elaborate what I meant by "similar to > org-use-property-inheritance". > > org-use-property-inheritance docstring: > >>>> When nil, only the properties directly given in the current entry >>>> count. When t, every property is inherited. The value may also be a >>>> list of properties that should have inheritance, or a regular >>>> expression matching properties that should be inherited. > > Similarly, concatenation of PROPERTY+ can be controlled on per-property > basis. > > Best, > Ihor
Could you provide an example of what the value of that variable would be if, for instance, I wanted PROP_A and PROP_B to be joined with a single space and PROP_C and PROP_D to be concatenated? Or better yet, have the default be to join with a single space for any property and have only PROP_C and PROP_D concatenated?
