Henry Hirsch <henry.hir...@adition.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:27:56AM -0400, Nick Dokos wrote:
>
> > In particular, I assume it does not process includes, because they need
> > to be preserved in examples.
> >
> > Nick
>
> So do you think it is reasonable that org-export-as-org is the only mode
> of export which is exhibiting a different behaviour?
>
It's certainly reasonable: it does not pretend to be a general-purpose
exporter. It may be misnamed though: if org-export-as-org is only used
in batch processing of e.g. Worg, then it can be renamed to something more
obscure and made non-interactive, so that it would not confuse the unwary.
One could imagine a general-purpose org-export-as-org that processes
includes, but I'm not sure what else it would do: just copy it's input
to its output mostly - other than processing includes, is there anything
else that it should do?
> For my part I think it is not. I used to love org-mode above
> everything. But this just leaves me not amused.
>
Well, there are a couple of options:
o org is very much a scratch-your-itch project - so you can
certainly go ahead and implement what you want.
o explain your use case: if it is compelling enough, somebody
might be motivated to implement what you ask for (but you need
to specify it exactly - and if somebody else implements it, be
prepared to compromise...)
But it is certainly *not* the case that org is some ivory tower project
that exists for theoretical purity only: there are hacks, work-arounds,
inconsistencies and bugs.
Nick
