From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Pinard?= <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Replace #+SETUP_FILE with #+INCLUDE
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:04:51 -0400
Message-ID: <86sj9m19vg.fsf@mercure.progiciels-bpi.ca>
References: <87a9vu5y2e.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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]:33581)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>) id 1TM0eM-0003Hy-T9
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:04:55 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>) id 1TM0eL-0002Tz-WC
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:04:54 -0400
Received: from bureau.ubity.com ([64.254.249.42]:51409
	helo=mercure.progiciels-bpi.ca)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>) id 1TM0eL-0002Tn-Sh
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:04:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87a9vu5y2e.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Wed, 10
	Oct 2012 14:08:41 +0200")
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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> Therefore, I don't see any reason to keep maintaining the #+SETUP_FILE
> keyword. I'd rather remove it and suggest to use #+INCLUDE: keyword
> instead.  Any objection?

None really.  I use both and distinguish them in some validation tool,
which I would happily and easily adapt! :-)

Fran=C3=A7ois