From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: org-element-at-point fails in programming-modes Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:23:50 -0400 Message-ID: <878umgy7x5.fsf@pierrot.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87zjez9xqc.fsf@gmail.com> <87vbpn9x6u.fsf@gmail.com> <87ppfvxslz.fsf@pierrot.dokosmarshall.org> <86ppfvjpwk.fsf@somewhere.org> <87tx57me13.fsf@alphaville.bos.redhat.com> <87d2btxjbn.fsf@pierrot.dokosmarshall.org> <87ha156qu1.fsf@geodiff-mac3.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKopG-00063v-G2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:24:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKopA-000262-Na for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:24:18 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43351) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKopA-00025l-HB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:24:12 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XKop8-0001xM-5o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:24:10 +0200 Received: from pool-173-48-174-104.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([173.48.174.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:24:10 +0200 Received: from ndokos by pool-173-48-174-104.bstnma.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:24:10 +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 Nicolas Richard writes: > Nick Dokos writes: >> One machine is running Gnus v. 5.13: that one smooshes the code >> blocks together. >> >> The other is running Ma Gnus v. 0.12: that one leaves empty >> lines between blocks. > > Do they both fontify blocks ? Yes. -- Nick