On 1/14/23, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote: > However, I do not see why we cannot implement them within the current > Org timestamp syntax:
my concern would be personal code and 3rd-party packages, which might have their own peculiar parsing. that parsing might even be of non-org files with org syntax that is embedded in another syntax. [like, parsing diffs of org, with planning line tses and perhaps trying to accommodate various user settings for org indentation where possible.] if otoh org provides really good api that can even do that, then i suppose you could tell those devs to use that api. also my personal preference is for less new org syntax. which is one reason why i like cl-style sexp kw for future features and subfeatures. syntax can be hard to look up in the org manual, hard to remember, etc. but that's mho.
