From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: [Bug] [babel] calls in :noexport: subtrees evaluated Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:15:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87oblkbr8m.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> References: <87ipbtc5q0.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <80y5ko3cko.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54439) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9EWH-0005UB-IB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:15:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9EW7-0001LO-Li for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:15:45 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56841) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9EW7-0001LI-Ej for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:15:35 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T9EW9-0000pz-8o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:15:37 +0200 Received: from genepi110.genepi.med.uni-goettingen.de ([134.76.140.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:15:37 +0200 Received: from andreas.leha by genepi110.genepi.med.uni-goettingen.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:15:37 +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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Sebastien, "Sebastien Vauban" 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.