From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Re: [BUG] nested blocks aren't protected on export Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:04:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87wrtjgkb2.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> References: <876316cz9g.fsf@gmail.com> <8739w7ane7.fsf@gmail.com> <87zkyfgpqb.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com> <87pqzb9nu2.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45674 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OTHlR-0002ee-Vz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:04:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OTHlP-0000Zq-EV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:04:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:42010) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OTHlP-0000Zi-89 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:04:55 -0400 Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39so3706912wyb.0 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:04:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87pqzb9nu2.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Schulte Cc: Org Mode , Carsten Dominik >>>>> Eric Schulte writes: > I would disagree here. There *is* a case where a protected comment > should be retained in the export. For example, if I'm writing a > document in which I want to discuss Org-mode markup. It should be > possible for me to include verbatim Org-mode code in my document, > through the use of e.g. > #+begin_src org > ,* example org > ,# this is a comment > ,this is not a comment > #+end_src > however without the protection check, the comment would be removed. If > there is a problem with comments being marked as protected when they > shouldn't be, then that should be fixed where the protection is being > applied, but I believe that the protection check in this patch is > required. Ok, I get your point. I wasn't thinking recursively. Regards, -- Nicolas