On Wed, 23.05.2012 14:21, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> At the moment you insert text at column 0, the list ends.  You can use
> inline comments (i.e. #+ This isn't) instead.

This however, does not solve my original problem, since it doesn't work
with #+INCLUDE (with version 7.8.09):

* Test
  - This will not indent the code properly as a part of the list element
#+INCLUDE foo.c src c
  - This will print "#+INCLUDE .." literally:
    #+INCLUDE foo.c src c
  - This works as expected:
  #+BEGIN_SRC c
  <contents of foo.c>
  #+END_SRC

Of course I could fall back to something like \lstlistinginput, but that
works only for TeX-export and hence defeats the whole point of
result-format-agnostic directives such as #+INCLUDE (at least when it's
used for source files).

> I do not. Export is consistent with in-buffer behaviour. You have
> created two lists here, not one, and it has nothing to do with export.

I find it odd for a comment to have such an effect on the "semantics" of
the document. My intuition about comments (that aren't special
directives) is that they have no effect on the final result (the PDF in
this case, or the binary in the case of compilable source code).

I think what I'm saying is that the comment shouldn't break up the lists
in the buffer either, but I don't have any strong feelings about this,
as long I can get #+INCLUDE to work in list elements. (But it would be a
nice, general rule that would allow #+INCLUDE to work as "expected".
Another alternative would be to make all such directives also work when
they're not at column 0).

Cheers,
Daniel