Hi Tim and Troy, Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes:
> I came across this inconsistency a while back. I think the problem is > that you should *not* be able to use elisp as a language specifier in > source blocks. > > All other language specifiers comply to the pattern of source block > languages being the language major mode name without the '-mode', but > there is no elisp-mode. > > The problem now is that removing support for 'elisp' would break too > much. What I suggest for this particular issue is this: first be liberal while staying consistent (thus allowing "elisp" as Troy suggest), then be strict when a major release is issued (thus removing aliases that are problematic, not just "elisp" but others.) WDYT? Troy, would you be able to prepare a patch for this? Thanks, -- Bastien
