On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Nick Dokos <ndo...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Charles C. Berry" <ccbe...@ucsd.edu> writes:
[snip] > >> If there is a use case for a capability that is not well supported by >> existing headers it would be good to have an example. >> > > There's the use case that John describes: I've evaluated everything, > checked everything, I'm ready for export, I don't want babel to touch > the results - and I have a million blocks, so I'd rather have a global > setting than go in with individual headers. > > If you've covered this in a previous reply, please ignore me: I've only > paid intermittent attention to the thread, so apologies for missing a > big chunk of what has gone on before in the thread. > I actually have never used o-e-b-e prior to this thread. I just dove in as I was curious about it. My solution is using :eval yes/no as desired. I often fiddle with blocks one by one, and when I'm done and want to export the whole doc, my "file-wide" solution is simply: M-x replace-string RET :eval yes RET :eval no Works great for me. It can be a little tedious to find a mistake and quick change no -> yes just to C-c C-c on it and then turn yes -> no, but it works well enough. I can't see toggling a system-wide variable related to babel execution as being any less cumbersome, actually. After all the hoopla about o-e-b-e being a bad idea, and learning that it doesn't just handle eval but formatting, too, I wonder what the purpose of the variable *is* for? John > In any case, although I'm not happy about the state of things, I > understand better why they are as they are. > > Thanks! > -- > Nick > >
