"Sebastien Vauban"
<wxhgmqzgwmuf-genee64ty+gs+fvcfc7...@public.gmane.org> writes:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>> Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org>
>> writes:
>>> I started to use lisp (as well as other) code blocks more and more to
>>> modify my work environment (emacs) for a particular (buffer-based)
>>> task.
>>> That is I change some variables, add some stuff etc.
>>> A real world example is for example the section below
>>>
>>> * Set-up :nonexport:
>>> #+source: setup-minted
>>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp :exports none :results silent
>>> (setq org-export-latex-listings 'minted)
>>> (setq org-export-latex-custom-lang-environments
>>> '(
>>> (emacs-lisp "common-lispcode")
>>> ))
>>> (setq org-export-latex-minted-options
>>> '(("frame" "lines")
>>> ("fontsize" "\\scriptsize")
>>> ("linenos" "")))
>>> (setq org-latex-to-pdf-process
>>> '("pdflatex -shell-escape -interaction nonstopmode
>>> -output-directory %o %f"
>>> "pdflatex -shell-escape -interaction nonstopmode
>>> -output-directory %o %f"
>>> "pdflatex -shell-escape -interaction nonstopmode
>>> -output-directory %o %f"))
>>> #+end_src
>>>
>>> This are settings from worg, which I use only during my work on that
>>> particular file/buffer e.g. to modify the export of the following
>>> beamer presentation.
>>> Whenever I load the buffer I jump to set-up and hit C-c C-C to execute
>>> it once. After that exports will do what I want.
>>> If I would change the above to :exports results and :results silent I
>>> would be asked to execute the code block on every export.
>>> Thanks to the new auto completion feature, I came across :eval and
>>> wonder if it makes sense to add
>>> :eval once
>>> and
>>> :eval once-query
>>>
>>> Which would allow to execute it only once (with query) if not called
>>> before and otherwise keeps quite.
>>> That would make *Set-up blocks much more efficient.
>>> Was thinking why there is no 'no-query' resp. 'always' flag which
>>> would execute code blocks without query even if asked for it in
>>> general but that would be somehow against safety measures ;)
>>
>> Aloha Totti,
>>
>> Will :cache yes do what you want?
>
> I'd answer no, as this wouldn't be re-eval'ed the next time he opens that
> buffer.
>
> But...?
>
> Best regards,
> Seb
Aloha Seb,
Yes, you're right. Perhaps #+BIND: then, instead of a babel code block?
Tom
--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com
