From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: abonnements Subject: Re: Hidden named blocks. Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:01:59 +0100 Message-ID: <544CF0C7.9050203@thierry-pelle.eu> References: <544CC86A.9000601@thierry-pelle.eu> <87egtvdtgj.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <544CD18B.4090106@thierry-pelle.eu> <87a94jdmss.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiNSc-0005RT-Uh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:02:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiNSV-0001IC-Ce for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:02:18 -0400 Received: from 7.mo2.mail-out.ovh.net ([188.165.48.182]:54703 helo=mo2.mail-out.ovh.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiNSV-0001Gq-7r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:02:11 -0400 Received: from mail629.ha.ovh.net (gw6.ovh.net [213.251.189.206]) by mo2.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EA93FFAD00 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:02:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87a94jdmss.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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 When I write my first post i was using version 8.2.7c. The behaviour of TAB on an #+name: ligne is the same with 8.2.10=20 (installed with package-install from elpa)... Sorry but can you explain me the normal behavour of TAB. Thanks. Le 26/10/2014 13:42, Nicolas Goaziou a =E9crit : > abonnements writes: > >> Thanks, that's what I supposed. >> >> But when you hit "TAB" on a "#+name: " line it fold the block to the >> "#+end_XXX". >> This is not the case for a "#+header:" line. > I think you're using an outdated Org. > >> So such a folding stuff may be easy to implement no? > As I wrote already, it would be confusing. The current behaviour (in > a recent Org) makes more sense. > > > Regards, >