From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add :eval only-manual to babel blocks
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 23:10:18 +0200
Message-ID: <87k194l7lx.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87v9srdcqe.fsf@gmail.com> <87h849b4z6.fsf@gmail.com>
 <87r23d9dqn.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
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 ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46184)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <mankoff@gmail.com>) id 1iKqYt-00026N-F7
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:10:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <mankoff@gmail.com>) id 1iKqYs-0003eT-ER
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:10:27 -0400
Received: from mail-ot1-x343.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::343]:43091)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <mankoff@gmail.com>) id 1iKqYs-0003dx-9X
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:10:26 -0400
Received: by mail-ot1-x343.google.com with SMTP id o44so21442616ota.10
 for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: <87r23d9dqn.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
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: <https://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"
 <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: Org Mailing List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>


On 2019-10-16 at 12:38 +02, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote...
> Of course, meawhile, do not rely on undefined behaviour :)

Would you accept a documentation patch that defines the current behavior?

Then I get what I want, and it is on future developers to not mess it up :).

  -k.