Re: Babel should not work in the subtree marked as not exported

[zwz <zhangweize@gmail.com>]

Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:

>> Sorry for being unclear here.  I wanted to propose different
>> behaviour for TAGs (lets say :noexport:) and the COMMENT keyword.
>> I am perfectly fine with :noexport: only prohibiting export but
>> still allowing evaluation.
>>
>> But I propose that COMMENT be more treated like a comment, so more
>> like a shorthand for commenting out that subtree using '# '.
>> That way, evaluation would be disabled.
>>
>> I see two benefits:
>> 1. It serves the use-case where one wants a subtree to be not
>>    exported and not evaluated.
>> 2. It more resembles Orgs idea of comments.
>>
>> And since the other use case (no export but still evaluation) is
>> still very well supported via :noexport: there would be not too
>> much loss.
>>
>> (IIRC, the COMMENT keyword was close to removal from Orgs syntax
>> recently.  So, why not add some real additional functionality to
>> it?)
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>
> This sounds like a good compromise to me.  As you say, this should
> easily and visually support both use cases and is intuitive.  I've not
> touched the export machinery myself, so I'll leave the implementation to
> Nicolas but I definitely support this approach.
>
> Best,
>

COMMENT is a good proposal. However, for someone new to org-mode, it is
difficult to tell the subtle difference between COMMENT and :noexport:.

IMO, it is more intuitive that :noexport: prohibits *both* export and
evaluation, and if some code in a :noexport: subtree is to be evaluated,
then it should be named and called in some other place.