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

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

Hi Sebastien,


"Sebastien Vauban"
<wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> writes:

> Hello Andreas,
>
> Andreas Leha wrote:
>> it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
>> are evaluated.  Is this intended?
>
> I think that, at least, it's not a bug. I don't /think/ it has never been
> specified like that. But I still don't have a clear view of what is done, in
> which order:
>
> - processing macros
> - inhibiting "noexport" subtrees
> - evaluating code blocks (possibly with noweb calls)
> - etc.
>
> 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).

Thanks for the pointer.  I am aware of that.  But this requires two
modifications, in order to get the desired behaviour: the :noexport: tag
and a 'eval no-export' property.

Just to
explain my use case.  I am doing a statistical analysis.  One "arm" in
that analysis is quite time consuming.  As it is one "arm" it is all
beneath one subtree.  But still split to several code blocks.
In that case it would be really handy to say :noexport: to the subtree
to
(1) not execute the lengthy code
(2) simultaneously omit the section in the exported pdf

Note, that I am also aware of the caching system.  I have been using it
a lot, but it sort of breaks the reproducible research paradigm and got
into my way too often.
>
>> In my opinion, these #+calls should not be evaluated.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>   Seb
>
> [1] Notice the different spelling: with or without the dash.