Re: [New Latex Exporter][BABEL][BUG] lists and inline src

[Eric Schulte <eric.schulte@gmx.com>]

Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Eric Schulte <eric.schulte@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for finding the source of this problem.  The preceding character
>> is checked so that inline source blocks can be commented.  E.g., a user
>> may want =src_sh{date}= to appear verbatim.
>
> =src_sh{date}= won't be expanded by `org-babel-exp-non-block-elements'
> (is there another function executing them?) since the current version
> checks object at point (in this case, it is a verbatim object, not an
> inline-src-block). So, in this case, there's no need for the check.
>
>> Similarly if the preceding character is a letter e.g.,
>> notsrc_sh{date}, then the source block should not be executed.
>
> I don't understand why it wouldn't be expanded in that situation. It can
> be useful if results are raw: it becomes a beefed-up macro.
>
>> Ideally there would be a way to specify that *if* a character exists
>> before the code block it must have some property, or to match the
>> beginning of the element as another regexp option.  I would say we can
>> go ahead and remove the leading portion of the regexp, but as I recall I
>> wrote it in response to legitimate complaints on the mailing list about
>> the overly permissive behavior of inline source blocks, and I do not
>> want for those problems to re-emerge.
>
> I understand, but it looks like a very drastic solution. It may be worth
> reconsidering it for 8.x branch. If problems re-emerge then, test cases
> will be provided. What do you think about it?
>
> For 7.9.x, I'll just commit the workaround.
>

Yea, that sounds reasonable, thanks for taking care of this.  If I find
time I'll dig through the mailing list and see if I can find the exact
reason why that portion of the regexp was added.

I've had the experience before of reverting a piece of code that seemed
superfluous to then have old bugs re-emerge and finally revert my
reversion.  So I now try to err on the side of deference towards
existing code.

Cheers,

>
>
> Regards,

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte