From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric S Fraga Subject: Re: [bug] [new-exporter] #+includes in non-exported regions do not work Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: <871ugh58vf.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> References: <87mwz63mjx.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <871ugi6dih.fsf@ed.ac.uk> <87sj8xu0dj.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87boflquqg.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54617) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSwQ6-0005V7-PV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSwQ5-0003ak-ON for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:50 -0400 Received: from am1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.205]:14873 helo=am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSwQ5-0003Xo-FF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87boflquqg.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:21:43 +0100") 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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Myles English , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Eric S Fraga writes: > >> There is still a bug in that the exporter should fail more gracefully? > > Agreed. This syntax error should be more explicit now. Thanks. Thanks! >> The question of structural interpretation remains: should the file be >> included if it is found within a not-to-be-exported headline? This is, >> at least for me, unexpected behaviour based on previous experience with >> the old exporter. > > There's a design choice at the roots of the export engine development: > External parts (i.e. everything but org-export.el and back-ends) > shouldn't have to know anything about the exporter (much like the Fight > club, isn't it?). Okay. I can see that the new approach is more consistent and that is always a good thing in my books. I guess I was just perturbed at the change in behaviour, and mostly because the error message made no sense to me as the not-to-be-exported sections were all hidden in my view! [...] > I like the current behaviour. I also fail to see why it should be > a problem. Though, I'm open to discussion to implement a mid-way > solution. Maybe with the COMMENT keyword which is exporter agnostic. It's a problem only because of the way I use the :noexport: and COMMENT tags to exclude parts of a document that are often incomplete or partially defined. However, I do realise I am being inconsistent as I use :noexport: tags to hide babel code that is referenced in the rest of my documents often. There probably is really no problem at all; I just simply need to adjust to a more logical approach to incomplete sections, e.g. commenting out =#+= directives I do not want processed. This would include =INCLUDE= and =BEGIN_SRC=. Not a big deal. So, I don't think there is anything to be done. Thanks for listening and sorry for the noise! -- : Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D : in Emacs 24.2.50.1 and Org release_7.9.2-406-g2c78ca-git