* On Sat 05:39PM +, 16 May 2009, Carsten Dominik
(carsten.domi...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi Hsiu-Khuern,
>
> On May 15, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> You recently changed org-edit-src-code to use a separate buffer instead of an
> indirect buffer. One side effec
Carsten Dominik writes:
> On May 18, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Taru Karttunen wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Mon May 18 09:07:11 +0300 2009:
>>> I think it's more complicated than that: source code loss is also the
>>> motivation for doing something like this. If you are editing the
>
On May 18, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Taru Karttunen wrote:
Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Mon May 18 09:07:11 +0300 2009:
I think it's more complicated than that: source code loss is also the
motivation for doing something like this. If you are editing the
code in
the *Org Edit Src* buffer,
On May 17, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Dan Davison wrote:
Following on from this, I'd like to suggest that, while it is being
edited, the source code is removed from the org buffer, to avoid
concurrency problems. I just had a go at that -- the patch below
replaces the source code with a work-in-progress
On May 18, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Taru Karttunen wrote:
Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Mon May 18 09:07:11 +0300 2009:
I think it's more complicated than that: source code loss is also the
motivation for doing something like this. If you are editing the
code in
the *Org Edit Src* buffer,
Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Mon May 18 09:07:11 +0300 2009:
> I think it's more complicated than that: source code loss is also the
> motivation for doing something like this. If you are editing the code in
> the *Org Edit Src* buffer, and get distracted, you may return to the org
> buff
Taru Karttunen writes:
> Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Sun May 17 20:28:01 +0300 2009:
>> Following on from this, I'd like to suggest that, while it is being
>> edited, the source code is removed from the org buffer, to avoid
>> concurrency problems. I just had a go at that -- the patch
Excerpts from Dan Davison's message of Sun May 17 20:28:01 +0300 2009:
> Following on from this, I'd like to suggest that, while it is being
> edited, the source code is removed from the org buffer, to avoid
> concurrency problems. I just had a go at that -- the patch below
> replaces the source co
Following on from this, I'd like to suggest that, while it is being
edited, the source code is removed from the org buffer, to avoid
concurrency problems. I just had a go at that -- the patch below
replaces the source code with a work-in-progress message that contains
a link to the edit buffer.
Th
Hi Hsiu-Khuern,
On May 15, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
Hi Carsten,
You recently changed org-edit-src-code to use a separate buffer
instead of an
indirect buffer. One side effect of this is that I can no longer
edit several
code examples at the same time: opening the second b
Hi Carsten,
You recently changed org-edit-src-code to use a separate buffer instead of an
indirect buffer. One side effect of this is that I can no longer edit several
code examples at the same time: opening the second buffer will silently discard
any changes made in the first. I would prefer th
11 matches
Mail list logo
