From: Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com>
To: John Ciolfi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Bug: Option to disable evaluation of code blocks during export [9.3.7 (9.3.7-dist @ /PATH/TO/org/install/emacs/site-lisp/org/)]
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 11:46:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR05MB6766969CA28262EFD747DAA0D1810@MN2PR05MB6766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> (John Ciolfi's message of "Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:32:26 +0000")
John Ciolfi <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Perhaps, in the interactive C-c C-e mode there could be:
> [C-e] Eval code blocks: always | never | use-eval-header-setting
> where 'use-eval-header-settings' is the default and uses whatever was
> set by the current org file and emacs session. Always and never would
> override that.
As I said, this would add an indirection level to an already complicated
Moreover, toggles in the export interface are never duplicates from
in-buffer settings, so far. This would set a precedent, and might be
a sign that this isn't right.
> Consider the scenario where a number of people are working on a common
> overall "book" which is constructed from many org-files. The
> "hardcoded" setting of :eval no-export header in individual blocks
> would mean that I cannot interactively enable or disable the
> evaluation of the blocks.
Why would you add :eval no-export to every block in the first place? In
this situation, there should be a global setting, which could be
overridden locally with appropriate header arguments.
Having a global way, even dynamic, to override every setting in the
buffer doesn't seem very useful. It is imprecise; some blocks could
still be used to set up export process. I assume there's a good reason
if a source code block specifies :eval yes.
> Part of my confusion was that it took a little bit to figure this out
> (I ended up debugging the lisp code to get what I wanted). I think
> this could be improved in the doc, though I do admit, I'm not entirely
> clear on all the ways to control evaluation of code blocks during
> export. If I were, I'd propose something for the org manual.
I think the starting point is in (info "(org) Exporting Code Blocks").
Improvements to the manual are welcome, of course.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-13 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-11 19:55 John Ciolfi
2020-06-11 21:28 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2020-06-11 21:57 ` John Ciolfi
2020-06-12 8:51 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2020-06-12 14:32 ` John Ciolfi
2020-06-13 9:46 ` Nicolas Goaziou [this message]
2020-06-13 12:22 ` Jeremie Juste
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).