From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Specifying ATTR_LATEX document wide?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:57:55 +0200
Message-ID: <87eglcbv7g.fsf@selenimh.access.network>
References: <m2382ajty7.fsf@krugs.de> <87r3purzjl.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
	<m2y4k1ciw4.fsf@krugs.de> <87k2vdgx8w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
	<m21thl5ncs.fsf@krugs.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37978)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1Z4aUf-00013N-D1
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:56:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1Z4aUe-0008PD-GK
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:56:29 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:35054)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1Z4aUe-0008P6-AQ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:56:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m21thl5ncs.fsf@krugs.de> (Rainer M. Krug's message of "Tue, 09
	Jun 2015 09:53:39 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de> writes:

> Thanks for the clarification. Is there a technical or security reason
> for this? because especially for export, file local variables would make
> sense to avoid the #+BIND keywords?

ISTR there is a technical reason for this. Under some circumstances,
local variables are not activated during export. I cannot remember which
ones, unfortunately.

Also, unlike to local variables, BIND keywords can be set through
SETUPFILE keywords.


Regards,