From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Org babel does not work properly with included files Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 23:43:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4419.1304307788@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <4DBDFE55.7080303@sift.info> <17693.1304299983@alphaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> <90a049ce-df0a-41ca-9a5e-617953d20e54@email.android.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46269) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGk2j-0007sj-Vu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 23:43:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGk2i-00076o-Vn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 23:43:29 -0400 Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.3]:56231) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGk2i-00076g-Si for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 23:43:28 -0400 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LKJ00AEGUBXI2G0@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 22:43:16 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 May 2011 20:48:58 CDT." <90a049ce-df0a-41ca-9a5e-617953d20e54@email.android.com> 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: "Robert P. Goldman" Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Robert P. Goldman wrote: > Sorry, I think I have created a red herring here by leaving that code blo= > ck in both files. To see what the problem really is, consider the case wh= > ere the source code block appears ONLY in the included file. > > (I tested the source block in the master file to make sure it worked befo= > re I copied it into the included file and forgot to remove it from the ma= > ster file.) > ?? There was no code block in foo.org: just the include. Only bar.org had the code block. As for multiple code blocks in the included file (your next message), yeah, probably. But my suggestion was just a (possible) workaround: it's definitely not a fix. Nick