From: Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Babel should not work in the subtree marked as not exported
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:41:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874n31dvf8.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87eh25d22d.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Eric,
Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
> Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what is your suggestion for the OP to achieve what he is after?
>>>>>>> noexport and noeval at the same time.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm jumping in half way through here,
>>
>> Thanks for jumping in.
>>
>>> but wouldn't setting the :noeval
>>> property to "yes" and :export property to "none" on the subtree work?
>>
>> Well, the property-setting works, but that is really cumbersome. In a
>> typical org file, it takes 5 keystrokes to toggle the :noexport: tag
>> (C-c C-c n TAB RET). But I do not want to count the keystrokes it take
>> to additionally set these properties.
>>
>
> Not that bad "C-c C-x p n RET yes", I get 8 to set noeval, if you've
> done it already in that Org file. You could also easily wrap this
> behavior into a function and bind that to a key-chord.
>
Plus setting :noexport: or COMMENT ;-)
Well, the most serious downside is, that there is no visual
feedback here. So, if I want both export and evaluation to be
disabled for a subtree, I first need to remember to also set the
property. And coming back later to that file, I also need to
check the property of each subtree in question to see, whether
evaluation is disabled. A TAG or the COMMENt are visible
immediately.
In my opinion, excluding a subtree from export *and* evaluation
is not an esoteric use case and deserves better support.
>>
>> Just to confirm. This is what you suggest, correct?
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> * test
>>
>> ** Not exported :noexport:
>> :PROPERTIES:
>> :noeval: "yes"
>> :export: "none"
>> :END:
>> #+BEGIN_SRC ditaa :file test.png :cmdline -E
>> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>> x | 0 cRED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
>> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>> #+END_SRC
>>
>> ** blah blah
>> blah blah blah
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> One may also want to COMMENT the subtree to inhibit it's export
>>> wholepiece (not just code blocks).
>>
>> This does not seem to work, as the test.png is also created here.
>>
>> Again, just to confirm. This is your suggestion, correct?
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> * test
>>
>> ** COMMENT Not exported
>> #+BEGIN_SRC ditaa :file test.png :cmdline -E
>> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>> x | 0 cRED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
>> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>> #+END_SRC
>>
>> ** blah blah
>> blah blah blah
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>
> Close, I meant the following alternative
>
> * test
>
> ** COMMENT Not exported
> :PROPERTIES:
> :noeval: "yes"
> :END:
> #+BEGIN_SRC ditaa :file test.png :cmdline -E
> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
> x | 0 cRED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
> +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
> #+END_SRC
>
> ** blah blah
> blah blah blah
>
>>
>>
>> So, my question to this thread is: What is the easiest way to disable a
>> subtree during export completely so that also none of the code blocks is
>> evaluated (regardless of its :session argument).
>>
>
> My example immediately above.
>
>>
>> Or even more precisely: Couldn't the COMMENT keyword do exactly that? I
>> do not expect code from inside a COMMENT subtree to be considered during
>> export.
>>
>
> No. This has been raised previously and there was a consensus that it
> is often desirable for code in a COMMENT section to be evaluated on
> export. Personally I often stuff code blocks into COMMENT sections
> which I want run as part of my publishing process (e.g., to create
> resources used in the exported document).
>
Sorry for being unclear here. I wanted to propose different
behaviour for TAGs (lets say :noexport:) and the COMMENT keyword.
I am perfectly fine with :noexport: only prohibiting export but
still allowing evaluation.
But I propose that COMMENT be more treated like a comment, so more
like a shorthand for commenting out that subtree using '# '.
That way, evaluation would be disabled.
I see two benefits:
1. It serves the use-case where one wants a subtree to be not
exported and not evaluated.
2. It more resembles Orgs idea of comments.
And since the other use case (no export but still evaluation) is
still very well supported via :noexport: there would be not too
much loss.
(IIRC, the COMMENT keyword was close to removal from Orgs syntax
recently. So, why not add some real additional functionality to
it?)
WDYT?
Regards,
Andreas
PS: IIUC, Samuel proposed the same thing:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/83459
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-14 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-11 12:47 Babel should not work in the subtree marked as not exported zwz
2014-03-11 13:27 ` Ken Mankoff
2014-03-11 13:41 ` Andreas Leha
2014-03-11 13:57 ` Ken Mankoff
2014-03-12 10:53 ` zwz
2014-03-12 22:58 ` Andreas Leha
2014-03-13 14:24 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-13 22:48 ` Andreas Leha
2014-03-14 1:03 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-14 5:44 ` Samuel Wales
2014-03-14 13:02 ` zwz
2014-03-14 19:10 ` Samuel Wales
2014-03-14 5:48 ` Samuel Wales
2014-03-14 8:40 ` Sebastien Vauban
2014-03-14 8:41 ` Andreas Leha [this message]
2014-03-14 19:59 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-15 13:54 ` zwz
2014-03-15 14:46 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2014-03-16 2:48 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-17 21:13 ` Andreas Leha
2014-03-24 15:15 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2014-03-24 16:05 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-24 16:21 ` Bastien
2014-03-24 17:28 ` Eric Schulte
2014-03-24 18:06 ` Samuel Wales
2014-03-24 18:49 ` Samuel Wales
2014-03-14 1:10 ` John Hendy
2014-03-14 8:34 ` Sebastien Vauban
2014-03-11 14:03 ` Rainer M Krug
2014-03-12 9:23 ` Sebastien Vauban
2014-03-12 10:46 ` zwz
2014-03-12 11:02 ` zwz
2014-03-12 15:00 ` John Hendy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874n31dvf8.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de \
--to=andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).