From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Loris Bennett" Subject: Re: Breaking up long #+TBLFM line? Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:48:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87powoeq6u.fsf@hornfels.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <87lh7ksly4.fsf@hornfels.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <2016-01-25T15-49-20@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <87zivtwsxw.fsf@hornfels.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <8737tlzhce.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60338) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNyNA-0003LQ-IQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 02:49:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNyN7-00088l-D0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 02:49:08 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:55033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNyN7-00088R-6H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 02:49:05 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aNyN5-0007Bp-EA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:49:03 +0100 Received: from hornfels.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.11.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:49:03 +0100 Received: from loris.bennett by hornfels.zedat.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:49:03 +0100 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 Nick, Nick Dokos writes: [snip: Loris' whinging and Karl's response (24 lines)] >> However, I still don't like the long #+TBLFM, although it's not going to >> kill me. >> > > That's good, because I think you'll have to live with it :-) > > There is support for multiple TBLFM lines, but not in the way you want: > they are alternatives, rather than cumulative - see > > (info "(org) Editing and debugging formulas") > > the section entitled "Using multiple #+TBLFM lines". I was aware of this and have found it useful. However, it seems a little inconsistent that some options, like '#+OPTIONS' or '#+LATEX_HEADER', are cumulative whereas others, like '#+TBLFM', are not. Is there a logic to this that I am overlooking? If not, is there an overview of how the different options behave? Cheers, Loris -- This signature is currently under construction.