From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Subject: Re: Capture template and elisp expression Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:00:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87ipy069os.fsf@gmail.com> References: <4D25B0BE.3040408@gmail.com> <23766.1294352789@gamaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> <87mxnc6hnf.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37242 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PbDpm-0000D2-My for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:02:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbDpk-0002pL-QV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:02:30 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com ([209.85.161.41]:57305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbDpk-0002p9-Lz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:02:28 -0500 Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so10473336fxm.0 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:02:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Carsten Dominik's message of "Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:14:15 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Carsten Dominik Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode , Rainer M Krug Carsten Dominik writes: > On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:08 PM, =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec wrote: >> Why aren't the %() expressions simply evaluated in the original buffer >> (if available)? That would solve these issues in a general way. It seems >> to me that there is no advantage to evaluating the expressions in the >> temporary capture buffer, but I'm not familiar with the code so I might >> be missing something. Is there a reason for that? > > The sexp can be used to insert stuff into the template, so I think it > is correct to evaluate it in the template buffer. I don't understand this argument. Of course the _result_ of the evaluation is inserted into the template, but why is it useful to evaluate the expression itself in the context of the template buffer? Is it likely that one would be interested in some information only available in the template buffer? To me it seems that the much more likely case is the one of Rainer -- i.e. the need to access variable bindings from the original buffer (buffer name, mode, other local variables etc.). =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n