From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: comment section with latex_header Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:24:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87d23znv5a.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <55110E84.3060408@roklein.de> <87zj72n5xk.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <86d23y3gxi.fsf@example.com> <5512A024.5050509@roklein.de> <86k2y4b1gt.fsf@example.com> <87lhijldia.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87iodmk8j5.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52433) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbSMr-00053K-Kv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:24:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbSMn-0008CR-JC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:24:01 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:53371) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbSMn-0008CC-CC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:23:57 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YbSMj-0007QQ-D3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:23:53 +0100 Received: from 193.63.222.21 ([193.63.222.21]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:23:53 +0100 Received: from andreas.leha by 193.63.222.21 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:23:53 +0100 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> I see. I did not consider any possible slow-downs. I'd expect COMMENT >> to behave exactly like # in every regard -- not only export. That is a >> clearly defined behaviour, that should not produce confusion. > > As explained, this is not realistic. > OK, then I'll update my mental model about COMMENTs. >> If COMMENT is only valid for export, then I would actually recommend >> to rename it to make that clear. > > The manual is, IMO, pretty explicit: > > Finally, a ‘COMMENT’ keyword at the beginning of an entry, but after > any other keyword or priority cookie, comments out the entire subtree. > In this case, the subtree is not exported and no code block within it is > executed either. The command below helps changing the comment status of > a headline. > >> I completely agree. My question was, what a use case would be that >> requires a COMMENT that behaves different from #'ing the individual >> lines (and is not covered by :noexport: already). > > I don't think there is any. This is basically what my first patch did > (i.e., removing any COMMENT subtree at the very beginning of export > process), but it nevertheless surprised some users. > Well, in that case my updated mental model should not change anything. Thanks, Andreas