From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: asynchronous exporter and babel confirmation Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <87fw082603.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44469) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDDYE-00053M-SA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:34:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDDYD-0000aI-V6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:34:30 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50662) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDDYD-0000a5-GI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:34:29 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UDDYP-0008VI-DP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:34:41 +0100 Received: from 217.10.52.10 ([217.10.52.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:34:41 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by 217.10.52.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:34:41 +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 Nicolas Goaziou gmail.com> writes: > Well, no, but its somewhat difficult to prevent it. Besides security > considerations, even if we set `org-confirm-babel-evaluate' to nil > during an asynchronous export, this won't handle the case of the user > explicitly uses a :query keyword in a source block header. Right. > A very ugly hack would be to use: > > (defalias 'yes-or-no-p 'ignore) Ugh. I hope this won't be necessary. I've recently refactored the evaluation check so it determines first whether the code-block should be run and only in the affirmative checks if it should query the user. So it should be much easier now to have another dynamic binding for preventing the question _and_ not run the block (as if the user had answered "no", which is the only sensible choice when skipping the query). It already skips the query when the cached result is not stale (since it doesn't actually run any code in this case). Regards, Achim.