From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Beck Subject: Re: no pdf-output in lilypond code blocks Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:45:38 +0100 Message-ID: <87sj5h199p.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> References: <87mww7kjdn.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> <87pq0w9d7w.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <8738xpboh5.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> <87libg6wen.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <877gmzsx65.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> <87ip6ezzlb.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <871ud2if9b.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874nhy2xm3.fsf@sophokles.streitblatt.de> <87sj5igy1f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ip6duutd.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57128) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0z8z-0006VD-IZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:45:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0z8x-00069S-7a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:45:53 -0500 Received: from mo6-p04-ob.rzone.de ([2a01:238:20a:202:5304::1]:22899) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0z8w-00069F-O2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:45:51 -0500 Received: from flo-laptop ([89.204.154.2]) by smtp.strato.de (jored mo33) (RZmta 31.14 SBL|AUTH) with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPA id c02d84p0VHSuBR for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:45:44 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87ip6duutd.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:27:26 +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 Achim Gratz writes: > Achim Gratz writes: >> Florian Beck writes: >>> I don't think so. The string evaluates to itself or am I missing >>> something? >> >> If it would fall under "SELFQUOTING" then yes (but I really don't >> understand what the doc string is trying to tell me there and what would >> be used for comparison). > > I've looked at this again and I still don't understand the docstring. > I've confirmed that the bytecompiler produces not only a warning during > compilation, but the compiled code won't work, I cannot reproduce this. The code works for me and byte compiling doesn't generate any warning. GNU Emacs 24.3.50.7 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.6.0) of 2013-01-28 on flo-laptop > so despite indications to > the contrary the backquotes are indeed necessary. This means that > either the docstring fails to clearly indicate the necessity of using > the backquotes on string constants or the bytecompiler fails to compile > legal code: I'd suggest you take this example to emacs-bugs and see what > the devs have to say. > > > Regards, > Achim. -- Florian Beck