Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes: > >> Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: >> >>> I don't see it as reinventing the wheel. One example, does pandoc have >>> something like the ox filters? >> >> It does; see e.g. http://pandoc.org/scripting.html >> >> Pandoc filters are actually more powerful than Org filters in most >> cases, because they are AST transformations. Pattern matching makes it >> convenient and practical in Haskell to just transform the part of the >> tree you're interested in. And because the Pandoc data structure has a >> JSON serialization format, filters can be written in just about any >> language, not just Haskell. >> >> This is an nice system, IMHO, which has one big advantage: it is >> possible to write complex filters (i.e., those that do more than just >> simple string manipulation) in an output-agnostic way. Pandoc filters >> can do things which are generally only possible or convenient to do in >> Org by creating a derived backend, which isn't output-agnostic. > > For the record, you can do the same in Org with a parse tree filter. > Other filters are meant to be less powerful but easier to write.
Not to mention the org-export-before filters if you want something that's still "easy" and in org syntax. Rasmus -- Enough with the bla bla!
