From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Torsten Anders Subject: Re: Org-babel: can evaluation confirmation be disabled (e.g., set to always yes)? Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:00:38 +0100 Message-ID: <3DFB4DAC-152A-462D-A7A2-4DFDA88642F2@beds.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qevgv-0000tn-CZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:00:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qevgt-0000ff-NO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:00:57 -0400 Received: from smtp.idnet.com ([212.69.40.133]:58660) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qevgt-0000dp-9S for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:00:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.idnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7262FDC23 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.idnet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.idnet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6dCmmU0k6Xax for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:00:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from smtp.idnet.com (template [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.idnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF35F2FDC43 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:00:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (cust132-dsl91-135-3.idnet.net [91.135.3.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.idnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96F62FDC23 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:00:37 +0100 (BST) List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Dear Nick, > It is documented in the Org manual, sec. 14.5, Evaluating code blocks, > footnote 1, which points you to sec. 15.4, Code evaluation and security > issues. Thanks for your help (and apologies for missing this footnote). Best, Torsten