Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-28 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Robert Klein writes: > If you revert the second patch, please put a note in the release notes > for the next org release, so the other babel users know a migration > path. I reverted the second patch, and slightly changed documentation. I'm not sure about ORG NEWS as using data from a COMMENT su

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-27 Thread Robert Klein
Hi, On 03/27/2015 12:02 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Andreas Leha writes: >> I completely agree. My question was, what a use case would be that >> requires a COMMENT that behaves different from #'ing the individual >> lines (and is not covered by :noexport: already). > > I don't think there is

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-27 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> I see. I did not consider any possible slow-downs. I'd expect COMMENT >> to behave exactly like # in every regard -- not only export. That is a >> clearly defined behaviour, that should not produce confusion. > > As explained, th

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-27 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Andreas Leha writes: > I see. I did not consider any possible slow-downs. I'd expect COMMENT > to behave exactly like # in every regard -- not only export. That is a > clearly defined behaviour, that should not produce confusion. As explained, this is not realistic. > If COMMENT is only vali

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-26 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> FWIW, I agree that COMMENT should be equivalent to individual line # . > > I hope you mean it should be equivalent during export only. Otherwise, > it would introduce some serious slowdown as COMMENT can be inherited. > I see. I d

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-26 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Andreas Leha writes: > FWIW, I agree that COMMENT should be equivalent to individual line # . I hope you mean it should be equivalent during export only. Otherwise, it would introduce some serious slowdown as COMMENT can be inherited. > Sections that should be accessible without being exported

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-26 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Sebastien Vauban writes: > Can't we say that a COMMENT'ed subtree is like having all of its > contents commented, line by line? IOW, nothing "accessible"? There is, at least, one problem. Comments are always comments (really). However COMMENT keyword is only active during export. That means t

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-26 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi all, Sebastien Vauban writes: > Robert Klein wrote: >> On 03/24/2015 10:04 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: >> >>> Can't we say that a COMMENT'ed subtree is like having all of its >>> contents commented, line by line? IOW, nothing "accessible"? >> >> This would probably break a lot of babel stuff.

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-26 Thread Sebastien Vauban
Robert Klein wrote: > On 03/24/2015 10:04 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: > >> Can't we say that a COMMENT'ed subtree is like having all of its >> contents commented, line by line? IOW, nothing "accessible"? > > This would probably break a lot of babel stuff. Could you elaborate why? > If there was

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-25 Thread Robert Klein
Hi, On 03/24/2015 10:04 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: > Can't we say that a COMMENT'ed subtree is like having all of its > contents commented, line by line? IOW, nothing "accessible"? This would probably break a lot of babel stuff. If there was an option to disable exports for #+NAME:-ed stuff (

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-24 Thread Sebastien Vauban
Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Robert Klein writes: > >> this patch also breaks this kind of construct where not the table is >> exported, but the one created from the booktabs() call: >> >> >> ---> begin example <--- >> * Grundlagen >> *** COMMENT unexported subtree with table source >> #+tblname

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-24 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Hello, Robert Klein writes: > this patch also breaks this kind of construct where not the table is > exported, but the one created from the booktabs() call: > > > ---> begin example <--- > * Grundlagen > *** COMMENT unexported subtree with table source > #+tblname: masse This is deprecate

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-24 Thread Robert Klein
On 03/24/2015 12:36 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > Andreas Leha writes: > >> If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is >> `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be >> uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in >> `

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Andreas Leha
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Andreas Leha writes: > >> If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is >> `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be >> uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in >> `# #+latex_header:'. >> >

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Hello, Andreas Leha writes: > If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is > `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be > uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in > `# #+latex_header:'. > > Is this a bug? (I'd say, yes)

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi Rasmus, Rasmus writes: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> Hi Rasmus, >> >> Rasmus writes: >>> Andreas Leha writes: >>> Hi all, If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be uneffective.

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Rasmus
Andreas Leha writes: > Hi Rasmus, > > Rasmus writes: >> Andreas Leha writes: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is >>> `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be >>> uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Sebastien Vauban
Rasmus wrote: > Andreas Leha writes: >> >> If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is >> `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be >> uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in >> `# #+latex_header:'. >> >> Is this a bug? (I'd

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-23 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi Rasmus, Rasmus writes: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is >> `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be >> uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in >> `# #+latex_header:'

Re: [O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-22 Thread Rasmus
Andreas Leha writes: > Hi all, > > If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is > `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be > uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in > `# #+latex_header:'. > > Is this a bug? (I'd say, yes...

[O] comment section with latex_header

2015-03-22 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi all, If there are `#+latex_header:' entries in a section and that section is `COMMENT'ed out, I'd expect the #+latex_header entries to be uneffective. As they are when I comment them out one by one as in `# #+latex_header:'. Is this a bug? (I'd say, yes) Regards, Andreas PS: ECM --8<