From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: comment section with latex_header Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:02:40 +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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35013) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbEva-0005DV-Af for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:02:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbEvU-00067o-7f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:02:58 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:38646) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbEvU-00067U-1c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:02:52 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YbEvA-0004Fm-F8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:02:32 +0100 Received: from cpc33-cmbg15-2-0-cust4.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([81.102.136.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:02:32 +0100 Received: from andreas.leha by cpc33-cmbg15-2-0-cust4.5-4.cable.virginm.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:02:32 +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: > >> FWIW, I agree that COMMENT should be equivalent to individual line # . > > I hope you mean it should be equivalent during export only. Otherwise, > it would introduce some serious slowdown as COMMENT can be inherited. > 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. But I am not sure (hence my question below) whether there are use cases that need different behaviour. If COMMENT is only valid for export, then I would actually recommend to rename it to make that clear. >> Sections that should be accessible without being exported get >> the :noexport: tag. >> >> Is there any usecase for COMMENTed sections that is not covered >> by :noexport:? > > Babel code from a :noexport: headline is executed. It isn't when in > a COMMENT headline. I think both are useful. 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). Regards, Andreas