From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: org-export-current-backend variable and org-mode 8 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 21:08:45 +0200 Message-ID: <8761vmbnia.fsf@gmail.com> References: <874nbavgmw.fsf@cantab.net> <87y58mtult.fsf@cantab.net> <87siyuzcnm.fsf@gmail.com> <87li4mtohu.fsf@cantab.net> <87r4ecs96v.fsf@cantab.net> <87bo5fb4cw.fsf@gmail.com> <87y58iaccl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59360) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5hBx-0007bv-Oo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:08:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5hBr-0001Mt-Km for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:08:41 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]:48607) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5hBr-0001Lq-EX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:08:35 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id en1so410275wid.2 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y58iaccl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sat, 03 Aug 2013 19:55:06 +0200") 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: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Achim Gratz writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Applied a slightly different version. Thank you. > > Shouldn't d1d918100e be in maint? No. Back-end as defstructs is only in the "master" branch. > Also, I don't think that "nil" should mean both "export in progress with > an anonymous backend" and "no export in progress". You've been > advertising the use of anonmous derived backends to customize exporting, > so to me it would make more sense if somehow there was a way to detect > that situation and then get the name of the parent backend instead. A back-end, anonymous or not, may have no parent at all. We can also store the full back-end object instead of its name. In this case, an unnamed back-end is not the same as nil. Alas, this variable was introduced for compatibility, which that solution kinda defeats. Speaking about compatibility, previous export framework didn't have anonymous back-ends. Handling the "nil" case would give us nothing more. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou