From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: org-babel-load-file support elisp Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:25:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87imke9a54.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tv47mq59.fsf@gnu.org> <871rrbb85a.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60685) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j13Rj-0005Ju-RK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 02:25:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871rrbb85a.fsf@gmail.com> (Tim Cross's message of "Tue, 04 Feb 2020 09:47:30 +1100") 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Tim Cross Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Tim and Troy, Tim Cross writes: > I came across this inconsistency a while back. I think the problem is > that you should *not* be able to use elisp as a language specifier in > source blocks. > > All other language specifiers comply to the pattern of source block > languages being the language major mode name without the '-mode', but > there is no elisp-mode. > > The problem now is that removing support for 'elisp' would break too > much. What I suggest for this particular issue is this: first be liberal while staying consistent (thus allowing "elisp" as Troy suggest), then be strict when a major release is issued (thus removing aliases that are problematic, not just "elisp" but others.) WDYT? Troy, would you be able to prepare a patch for this? Thanks, -- Bastien