From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Why is Org PDF LaTeX Output not readonly? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:48:54 -0500 Message-ID: <87h93u199l.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> References: <87o9y3pm8m.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <878tp7o1fd.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56469) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ceNN8-00075Y-8z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:49:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ceNN4-0006kF-7k for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:49:26 -0500 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=44150 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ceNN4-0006gA-0x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ceNMr-0000sA-1L for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:49:09 +0100 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Florian Lindner writes: > Am 15.02.2017 um 17:37 schrieb Eric S Fraga: >> On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 at 16:07, Florian Lindner wrote: >>> The exported PDF opens in okular (xdg-open) and I'm perfectly happy with it. I think we're talking about different >>> things. I mean the buffer that contains the output of the latex command and potential error message, looking like: >> >> Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Well, as Nick says, does it really matter >> as editing it won't affect anything? >> >> Funnily enough, I never see this buffer unless I go looking for >> it. Maybe there's an org setting that causes this buffer to be >> displayed or not? I cannot see one. > > It would be much easier to close it quickly this way I don't understand this: why is it easier if the buffer is read-only? Don't you still have to do M-x kill-buffer? > and it would be consistent with other buffers that serve the same > purpose, like the beforementioned Auctex output buffer. > > For me, it would just the right thing. > OK - that I can understand. -- Nick