From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [New Latex Exporter][BABEL][BUG] lists and inline src Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:27:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87y5k4sdf9.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87haqvf1e0.fsf@tajo.ucsd.edu> <87392eqv0e.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87627a3tk9.fsf@tajo.ucsd.edu> <878vc57et0.fsf_-_@gmx.com> <87vcf8dh93.fsf@gmail.com> <87zk4k4vl3.fsf@gmx.com> <87392ctygj.fsf@gmail.com> <87sjac38t3.fsf@gmx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53893) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEmSv-0005f9-5P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:31:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEmSu-00079a-4D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:31:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:47207) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEmSt-00079V-UZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:31:12 -0400 Received: by wgbdt14 with SMTP id dt14so1512452wgb.30 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:31:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87sjac38t3.fsf@gmx.com> (Eric Schulte's message of "Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:26:00 -0600") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Schulte Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, cberry@tajo.ucsd.edu Eric Schulte writes: > Yea, that sounds reasonable, thanks for taking care of this. If I find > time I'll dig through the mailing list and see if I can find the exact > reason why that portion of the regexp was added. That would be a great starting point to avoid repeating past mistakes. > I've had the experience before of reverting a piece of code that seemed > superfluous to then have old bugs re-emerge and finally revert my > reversion. So I now try to err on the side of deference towards > existing code. I know the feeling. But I'm pretty confident on this one. BTW, the bug should be fixed in 7.9.x now. Regards,