From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Dahl Subject: Re: org-babel prepends <> expansions with the prefix of the <>? Can this be turned off? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:00:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37808) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j6UCi-0005ss-Mc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:00:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j6UCh-00085f-LK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:00:28 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]:39026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j6UCh-000854-F1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:00:27 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id c16so13055050ioh.6 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:00:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi, That's a fun coincidence, I ran into this behaviour a couple of days ago as well. For anyone wondering why one would want to comment out their noweb tags but still expect them to result in uncommented code expansion: if one is to edit a source block containing Noweb tags, the emacs mode for that programming language might interpret those tags in an unexpected way and give a messy result, e.g. in my case with LilyPond, mess up the indentation of the rest of the code block. Luckily, Noweb tag syntax is configurable using org-babel-noweb-wrap-start and org-babel-noweb-wrap-end. Thus, the way I worked around this was to define, for the file containing LilyPond code blocks, org-babel-noweb-wrap-start as "%<<", % being LilyPond's comment symbol. But I still wonder if there is a better way. Cheers, Johannes On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 04:10, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote: > > Hello, everyone > > I have the following case: > > #+name: test1 > #+begin_src shell > LINE to comment > LINE to not comment > #+end_src > > #+begin_src shell > #<> > #+end_src > > When I expand it, I get: > #LINE to comment > #LINE to not comment > > That's not entirely what I want. Can this behaviour be switched off somehow? > > -- > Yours sincerely, Vladimir Nikishkin >