From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Charles C. Berry" Subject: Re: Babel CALL no longer produces HTML output Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:55:39 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87r3akzh3c.fsf@iki.fi> <87fur0fgbh.fsf@saiph.selenimh> <87wpkaw5ym.fsf@saiph.selenimh> <87shuyw3hg.fsf@saiph.selenimh> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRiEM-0008WR-Gt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:55:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRiEI-00058g-B2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:55:45 -0400 Received: from iport-bcv3-out.ucsd.edu ([132.239.0.89]:45561) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRiEI-00058H-2Y for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:55:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87shuyw3hg.fsf@saiph.selenimh> 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" To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Jarmo Hurri , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > "Thomas S. Dye" writes: > >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >>> You may want to add (:eval . "yes") to >>> `org-babel-default-lob-header-args' if you disagree. >> >> Perhaps this should be added to the default value of >> org-babel-default-lob-header-args for the sake of legacy code? > > I don't think so, for three reasons: > > 1. `org-babel-default-lob-header-args' didn't include this association previously; > > 2. unlike to :exports, there is no obvious default value for the :eval > argument; the expected default value would be to unset :eval, which > requires another mechanism; > > 3. I think it is dangerous to assume and Babel call can be evaled, even if > the original source block cannot; after all, the user explicitly > marked the original code block with ":eval no" for a reason. > Fair enough. I can think of reasons why a user would want to do this, but the current setup accomodates those pretty well. Chuck