From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zwz Subject: Re: Babel should not work in the subtree marked as not exported Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:54:37 +0800 Message-ID: <87ppln4leq.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87wqg0gawq.fsf@gmail.com> <87lhwgettp.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <87bnxbg02x.fsf@gmail.com> <87ha73dnxe.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <87zjku41nq.fsf@gmail.com> <878usdemuv.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <87eh25d22d.fsf@gmail.com> <874n31dvf8.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <8738ik8rod.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOpQr-0000ao-NI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:19:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOpQk-0001B2-CN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:19:25 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40547) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOpQk-0001As-5g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:19:18 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WOpQj-0003dE-3i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:19:17 +0100 Received: from 39.189.213.197 ([39.189.213.197]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:19:17 +0100 Received: from zhangweize by 39.189.213.197 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:19:17 +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 Eric Schulte 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.