From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=A9bastien_Vauban?= Subject: Re: disable automatic source block evaluation but allow manual Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:48:07 +0100 Message-ID: <807hfaaw14.fsf@missioncriticalit.com> References: <4D09D2EF.8070309@med.uni-goettingen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Andreas, Andreas Leha wrote: > is there an option (source block header argument) that allows to disable = the > evaluation of the block, but still allows C-c C-c to perform the evaluati= on? > The header argument ':eval never' disables the evaluation completely. I'd > like the C-c C-c to take precedence over this. > > So I guess I am looking for something like ':eval manual' If I rewrite what I understood from your post, you want to make a clear distinction between: - allowing evaluation in the Org buffer (when *editing*) - allowing evaluation when *exporting* it In fact, I've been thinking at something that annoys me a bit, around this similar subject: I find it weird to have a buffer that does not contain the same up-to-date information as the exported (and updated) document. Arbitrary example: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- * Sh code #+begin_src sh :results output :exports both date #+end_src #+results: : Thu, Dec 16, 2010 10:32:36 AM #+begin_src sh :var thisfile=3D(buffer-file-name) echo $(ls -lia "$thisfile" | cut -d " " -f 6) "Bytes in this buffer" #+end_src #+results: : 297 Bytes in this buffer --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- If I add words in that file, the number of characters will go up. That will= be correctly "visible" (shown) in the exported document. But, *if I don't manually execute* all the code snippets above, they will h= ave a wrong output...[1] ... moreover, as said previously, it will always (in the above example) be different from the HTML/PDF version of that buffer. It may lead to erroneous appreciation of code results, and lead to different and unsynchronized versions of documents (source Org file, exported documents). I have a gut feeling that either: - the export function should not evaluate any code block, or - when evaluating them for the export, the Org buffer should be updated in = the same way (results of evaluation copied back into the Org buffer). I guess the first solution is not a good one. What about the second? Best regards, Seb Footnotes: [1] Number of characters won't reflect the new values. And, even if I don't touch it, the time information will be different between the Org and the exported files. --=20 S=C3=A9bastien Vauban _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode