From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Ecay Subject: Re: problems with export and :cache Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:17:59 +0000 Message-ID: <87fv0tya8o.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87vb9pyf0l.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zroxs-0002s3-7c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:18:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zroxp-0005K6-I4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:18:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:37690) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zroxp-0005K0-Bq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:18:05 -0400 Received: by wicfv8 with SMTP id fv8so46237162wic.0 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Andreas Leha , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Andreas, 2015ko urriak 29an, Andreas Leha-ek idatzi zuen: > Thanks a lot. I applied your patch but it seems that your patch does > not solve the problem in this specific situation. Or do I miss > something? That patch only solves one possible source of the problem. There are others, which are likely affecting you. >=20 >=20 >> I personally regard the babel cache as dangerous and unpredictable in >> its present form. You=E2=80=99re much better off using language-specific >> caching/memoization features and/or a disciplined regime of manual >> reevaluation. >=20 > I agree and avoid the caching mechanism generally. But all alternative > approaches do involve more work, so I am regularly tempted to use it > again. >=20 > Generally, I think that caching is a sensitive area. And if we think > that it is unpredictable and advise people to stay off of it, we are > better off removing it than offering it in this state. At least until > it behaves (more) predictable. I agree. I would be in favor of putting strong warnings in the documentation that caching is not to be relied on. (We shouldn=E2=80=99t remove it from the codebase entirely for backwards compatibility reasons.) But we should hear a consensus from the community before proceeding down this road. --=20 Aaron Ecay