On 01/04/21 1:47 pm, Ramesh Nedunchezian wrote:
> (FWIW, the above snippet is from the README file of Emacs's official ELPA
> repo. cf. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/README#n80)
While I was trying to convert the above `org' file to `info' I
observed the following:
1. org linter report being /unlike/ compilation buffer.
2. source blocks with do /not/ specify a language failing to export.
The file has two source blocks like with "empty" language. (Note that
there are other src blocks in that file, which /do/ specify language
as shell.)
#+begin_src
make packages/<pkgname>
#+end_src
and doing C-c C-e i o results in a failure.
M-x org-lint produces the following result
44 high Missing language in source block
51 high Missing language in source block
While in the lint buffer, I was expecting that M-g M-n, M-g M-p would
take me to the relevant source lines. Unfortunately, this isn't the
case. And the linter report is derived from
`org-lint--report-mode-map' which is derived from
`tabulated-list-mode'. The departure from convention surprised me.
And .... the following snippet works fine i.e., The linter finds any
issue with an "unknown" language but complaints if the "unknown"
language happens to be empty.
#+begin_src zzzzzzzzzzzzz
make packages/<pkgname>
#+end_src
I wonder why an unknown langauge would be acceptable for export and
not a "empty" language. Isn't source blocks with no language
equivalent to example blocks.
