Protesilaos Stavrou

> > But that will not complete the set if, say, the identifier is > missing from the front matter. > > jeanphilippegg: I think it is not an issue...

I am still refining the code we have as I noticed that tasks that needed to be finalised. @jeanphilippegg I observed that the helper I had earlier to split the...

> I am okay with either approach! > > I have a slight preference toward `denote--extract-keywords-from-front-matter` because the handling is more precise and it can be split into individual functions...

Any thoughts on this diff? ```diff denote.el | 22 ++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/denote.el b/denote.el index b53692e..c8a9796 100644 --- a/denote.el +++ b/denote.el @@ -671,19...

Okay. Worst case scenario, we edit it afterwards.

> Yes! I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Both approaches are good. And we are working on rare use-cases anyway. Indeed! These are all edge cases. Anyhow,...

I am now working on changing how we check for the front matter. Returning a list with the entries seems like the most flexible approach. We will then check for...

Hello again folks, I feel we will have to put a hold on the plan to implement an insert/rewrite/complete mechanism for the front matter. I have been working on it...

A follow-up on my previous comment. This is the sort of command I have in mind: ```elisp (defun denote-add-front-matter (file title keywords) "PROOF-OF-CONCEPT. Insert front matter at the top of...

> I understand your points and - as I wrote at the beginning of the whole discussion - I am not sure, whether my described use case really justifies the...