From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Bug in latex export tutorial on worg ? Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 01:53:08 -0400 Message-ID: <9389.1305006788@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <4DC8A5C5.4050202@sift.info> <7319.1304996046@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <4DC8A9D5.5090504@sift.info> <8460.1305001352@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <4DC8C314.7020106@sift.info> <8838.1305003974@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45087) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QJfsq-0004xO-QS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:53:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QJfsp-0004fx-Q9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:53:24 -0400 Received: from vms173013pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.13]:58703) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QJfsp-0004fe-Je for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:53:23 -0400 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173013.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LKY00MJSTOLLMN0@vms173013.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:53:09 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Nick Dokos of "Tue, 10 May 2011 01:06:14 EDT." <8838.1305003974@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> 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 Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Org Mode , rpgoldman@sift.info Nick Dokos wrote: > Robert Goldman wrote: > > > Ah. I get it now. But then surely the above IS a bug -- presumably > > it's not usual for a person to wish their latex export configuration to > > appear, in verbatim block, in their org-generated latex document! > > > > Perhaps not in most cases, but a tutorial has to do exactly that: how > else is it going to show the reader what needs to be done? Certainly > not by omitting the code that the reader is supposed to use. > After Tom's reply, I went and looked at the example and now I get it too :-) Sorry for being dense before. Nick