From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: Error after org-remember-insinuate on Aquamacs Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:19:20 -0400 Message-ID: <24596.1249237160@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <7D70A98C-84EE-48C7-9164-D7CB32BDF2D4@gmail.com> <10707.1248203022@alphaville.usa.hp.com> <33E2B544-0C5C-445B-8EBD-F151946D2F95@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXfg9-0006JZ-Na for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:21:05 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXfg4-0006JJ-AZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:21:04 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58504 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXfg4-0006JG-4P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:21:00 -0400 Received: from vms173007pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.7]:33245) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MXfg3-0005pH-Qd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:20:59 -0400 Received: from gamaville.dokosmarshall.org ([98.110.172.159]) by vms173007.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KNR00ACKHK10WH4@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:19:18 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Markus Baden of "Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:01:39 +0200." <33E2B544-0C5C-445B-8EBD-F151946D2F95@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Markus Baden Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Markus Baden wrote: ... > So it is clearly some misconfiguration on my side. One thing I did not > get in this thread is, what the difference between running org-mode > interpreted instead of compiled and why this may have caused the > trouble. Can someone explain this a little bit? > In itself, that should *not* cause the trouble. The only difference should be that when you hit an error, the backtrace is much more informative if you are running interpreted, rather than compiled, code. HTH, Nick