From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Warn about unexpanded macros on export Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:26:21 +0200 Message-ID: <8738bi13te.fsf@gmx.us> References: <87k34zqv9r.fsf@gmail.com> <87bnqbv27b.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvfjow6p.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XWWjE-0006H3-FE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:30:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XWWj6-0000uJ-P9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:30:28 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:53858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XWWj6-0000t5-Hx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:30:20 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XWWh7-0001yl-3Z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:28:17 +0200 Received: from 108.61.76.10 ([108.61.76.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:28:17 +0200 Received: from rasmus by 108.61.76.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:28:17 +0200 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 Hi, Aaron Ecay writes: >> You have two options. Either report an error, as you suggested, or >> insert an obnoxious message in the output, e.g., "UNKNOWN MACRO", à la >> "DEFINITION NOT FOUND." for footnote definitions. In any case, this >> should happen in "org-macro.el", not in the export framework. This is pretty annoying for footnotes. > I think error is better than obnoxious message, because it’s possible > for the latter to slip through into a “production” document. (We ought > to proofread our documents carefully, of course...but no one’s perfect). I think an error is correct, but the message should be informative, e.g. "macro MACRO undefined at LINE". —Rasmus -- Summon the Mothership!