From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id OD5bBkc0ml8obQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 03:17:27 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id mA8QAkc0ml9eIgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 03:17:27 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE4F94036A for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 03:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kXyRH-0005GL-D8 for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:17:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kXyQd-0005GD-1C for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:55939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kXyQa-0005T3-5v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B94F4B72; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=BzE5qRQCi54B KO189d20qH+dAF0=; b=h8a7+eRVISsNSlZZtcGvOqbgR8lB28k6jZoDHIdzSVd0 9UIdCZUsRsh2FayOSQH39v5deNjy8mL7E9TGX9G/54YPpongyXEByOvRJMcJzGnf WRGHry41Bgf771RhnagbZjuHGC6Oip9jMEV40JwmnEY43GHOQGN64dG9xGznzcg= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B602FF4B71; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=kyleam.com; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=gmUmwCMNswWO3B9NbMNTxQXMSom0OJ/qro2B7eD9Xgo=; b=x0mv4gVz4PZSrcqnrWmei1hFW2DraLWq2xSxD+Hf72X9RNWhVrDRYKq1//6gH6b7Dqxql9juWH4+Q8TwtjDOwsrKskYDlYyQpXeVW3OuJyxWsOOzM3giYxNuKZRyW+pGEucgUloMvsCKFCGoZMD++Ck3smtAqfr02+o/lPuBi20= Received: from localhost (unknown [45.33.91.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28490F4B70; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com) From: Kyle Meyer To: =?utf-8?B?5ZC06ZSQ5oms?= Subject: Re: Confusion about org-confirm-babel-evaluate's behavior while exporting lob calls In-Reply-To: <5A8F4FFB-14DD-4577-99B6-EF557074DEC0@gmail.com> References: <5362C0A0-632F-4C87-8FA1-915F0F53D8B8@gmail.com> <871rhivb5l.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <5A8F4FFB-14DD-4577-99B6-EF557074DEC0@gmail.com> X-Woof-Bug: confirmed Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:16:32 -0400 Message-ID: <87pn51u3fz.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25E96F9A-1995-11EB-B4B3-E43E2BB96649-24757444!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Received-SPF: pass client-ip=173.228.157.52; envelope-from=kyle@kyleam.com; helo=pb-smtp20.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/28 21:55:02 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Berry, Charles" , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=pobox.com header.s=sasl header.b=h8a7+eRV; dkim=pass header.d=kyleam.com header.s=mesmtp header.b=x0mv4gVz; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.21 X-TUID: lSuPZT7CKAFz =E5=90=B4=E9=94=90=E6=89=AC writes: > The author explained his motivation for the commit in the mailing list be= fore it got applied: > >> That's because lob calls get wrapped internally in an anonymous >> emacs-lisp source block that then feeds through the result from the >> actual call as elisp. The attached patch should suppress the >> confirmation for the wrapper call. To the best of my knowledge nothing >> dangerous can happen with that evaluation and all confirmations for the >> call stack down from there have already taken place according to the >> users' setup. Just for reference: it looks like that's https://orgmode.org/list/87k3oaw7jz.fsf@Rainer.invalid > If I understand correctly, executing a lob call would trigger two user > confirmations in the past, and this commit was meant to suppress one > of the two confirmations. (I may be wrong since I am a fairly new user > of org mode.) Thanks for digging. Indeed, if you go back to the parent of 56bf3d789 (Babel: avoid superfluous confirmation for internal wrapper, 2013-04-10), there are two queries. On that commit, there is one. > Now there is no confirmation at all. IMHO, there should be exactly > one confirmation ideally. It looks like the query went away with dbb375fdf (Simplify Babel calls evaluation, 2016-06-16), which was included in the 9.0 release. Based on a quick glance at that commit, I don't think that was an intentional change. I won't take a closer look at this until at least this weekend, though. I'd be very happy if someone beat me to it.