From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thibault Polge Subject: Re: Discrepancy between documentation and implementation regarding comments Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:14:37 +0100 Message-ID: <878sp3y6ya.fsf@thb.lt> References: <87eeyyy013.fsf@thb.lt> <87ftjd3zba.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87blu1xfjb.fsf@thb.lt> <87tv7s3kw8.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60086) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iPSGi-0005if-Sx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:14:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iPSGh-00006x-MU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:14:44 -0400 Received: from 6.mo69.mail-out.ovh.net ([46.105.50.107]:49034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iPSGh-00006J-Ff for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:14:43 -0400 Received: from player694.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.108.57.141]) by mo69.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C516C895 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:14:40 +0100 (CET) In-reply-to: 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" To: Robert Pluim Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert Pluim writes: > end of line *is* a whitespace character, but I=CA=BCm not going to argue > that. I=CA=BCm going to argue that this doesn=CA=BCt cover the case of a = '#' at > EOB without a newline, hence saying 'zero or more' would be better. But zero-or-more would mean that this line: #Alpha Is a comment, along with: #+TITLE: My Org document And virtually of all Org meta-lines. I've thought about the \n# issue, but I haven't tested how the current implementation behaves in this regard. I think the recent changes in Pandoc would parse it as a comment. Regards, Thibault --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEExwXquOM8bWb4Q2zVGxM2FxoLkGQFAl24SU0ACgkQGxM2FxoL kGQJIRAAuH3/4sPOFwwbBDYLf9EZkku3zHO5KRl+ExC85rNnH3MBn5HO/7c9vil+ uDf2WQCN49XpymqamVmNaoS1G5CdnDC9/Aw6Et9IomJc03dHmhh3F08rDfOuGH2h 4wakxoO/JQynjPGsTNpI8nZmbVAXN/6TC72HrIdcEEluvvajkuQcSNZ0eKSzirLZ 0y79HFq8Lk/Lk788S47yeEsLHtA3xLGHJWttXOEThHR8PNuzSiJgFCgGhivjnid/ TRdDbtaKL4uJFk20G3iYb3ATpSFV+4OD+b6YFUoJ6aM8y0Po+3PjjcecnSRXGOlv w+pM/oYrQ0WO7Z9R5nlK5pucff2UcNk4rGk0jV/zz805g5Fch8nPa7J4yaQOk0Zy OmtiD7rErAHReYGcC8zGleioSYlPvFowbusnpaitrp8h3sXiNGrloznSgSpajf0J 6NqFgCEPsiFvQ6464U6540dwwWdiy7chhpnEfVK7tK5yUyXeQVir65dAc9enMbkP 8b95OpoLAqJw5+sN7Lt1cu7UM+tnl8veP8akrAtTPvzWBrPxQP8R1Z9+A7N3IWn2 5QbKS2dY29UzlQmdnOu1LGNCLb81adv29hucmCTlQBtKiburxqhOtSnOU6V4Te2s /JhT0KPvR8PUGTrd3KvNXG/TIlBxOEicSrHcBOmXRhpTa70D+Bg= =g41k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--