From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Exporter interface question
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:17:33 +0100
Message-ID: <2D69C12E-E2FF-4D1F-80AF-2676E68CE371@gmail.com>
References: <DC6371D0-B65B-4BCE-8EDD-AFDE9ED812EB@gmail.com>
	<871uc2t9z7.fsf@gmail.com>
	<8993D674-E5E6-4B8E-AE3C-75F694371459@gmail.com>
	<8738whsrx3.fsf@gmail.com>
	<BE6C7742-48F1-4E2A-874F-8D528206FC7F@gmail.com>
	<87ip5cpwkx.fsf@gmail.com>
	<40E06D48-822F-4432-9D92-4F72AC866338@gmail.com>
	<87621cpqm5.fsf@gmail.com>
	<79ED4614-0209-4587-A8CE-343A7DBFAC3F@gmail.com>
	<871uc0p2kc.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41480)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>) id 1UCRWg-0001mo-Pg
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:17:43 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>) id 1UCRWc-0002LV-5U
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:17:42 -0500
Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:40742)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>) id 1UCRWb-0002LJ-RQ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:17:38 -0500
Received: by mail-ee0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b47so3626860eek.15
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:17:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <871uc0p2kc.fsf@gmail.com>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Cc: Org-mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>


On 28.2.2013, at 22:10, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>=20
>> On 28.2.2013, at 13:30, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>=20
>>>> I agree, but I think then also setting the mark need to take care =
to
>>>> set the mark in the base buffer. Will do this.
>>>=20
>>> AFAICT, this is not necessary. Indirect buffers share markers with =
base
>>> buffer.
>>=20
>> I think it is necessary.  If I move a marker to a position
>> in a buffer and another marker to the same position in a connected
>> indirect buffer, both markers are different and point to different
>> buffers.  So if I start an export from an indirect buffer, the
>> dispatch marker will point to the indirect buffer.  If I later
>> compare the marker-buffer with (org-base-buffer (current-buffer)) I
>> do get a mismatch.  So if you want to compare to org-base-buffer,
>> I think I clearly need to set the marker to a position in the base
>> buffer.
>=20
> Then what about comparing base buffer for both entities?

That would be the alternative, right.  Do you think this would be =
preferred to what I am doing right now?

- Carsten

>=20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> --=20
> Nicolas Goaziou