Re: [Bug] [babel] calls in :noexport: subtrees evaluated

[Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de>]

Eric Schulte <eric.schulte@gmx.com> writes:

> "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>>>> In fact, what you expect is that putting a tag ":noexport:" on a subtree would
>>>> propagate the option ":eval no-export"[1] to all code blocks beneath it. That's
>>>> the one which inhibits code block evaluation during export (but allow
>>>> interactive evaluation).
>>>>
>>>> I really don't have any strong opinion about this, even if, without further
>>>> thinking, I'd favor the same behavior as the one you expected.
>>>
>>> To answer the OP, :noexport: tag is related to export, not to
>>> src-blocks. There are already other ways to disable code evaluation on
>>> subtrees. It may be useful, as in your case, to have their behaviour
>>> linked, but again, sometimes not.
>>>
>>> It's often better to keep separate things, well, separate.
>>
>> To see whether there is more weigh toward a solution or the other, I would
>> formulate the question this way:
>>
>>     are there real use-cases where one would want to *not* export a subtree
>>     (by tagging it), though to *well* evaluate the code blocks it contains?
>>
>
> #+Title: Example
>
> Results in heading [[#first]] are generated by un-exported code blocks in
> heading [[#second]].
>
> * first
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :CUSTOM_ID: first
>   :END:
>
> Things my adviser cares about.
>
> #+RESULTS: foo
> : like some result: 3
>
> * second                                                           :noexport:
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :CUSTOM_ID: second
>   :END:
>
> Things my adviser does not care about, but which I need to keep, like
> minutiae of generating the result.
>
> #+Name: bar
> - foo
> - bar
> - baz
>
> #+Name: foo
> #+begin_src sh :var bar=bar
>   echo "like some result: $(echo $bar|wc -w)"
> #+end_src

I see the use case in the example.  It would have never occurred to me
to write it like that, though.  If I need the results in [[#first]] I'd always
have an appropriate #+call line in [[#first]] as well...

- Andreas