[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [New Latex Exporter][BABEL][BUG] lists and inline src

From: Eric Schulte
Subject: Re: [O] [New Latex Exporter][BABEL][BUG] lists and inline src
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:26:00 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux)

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
> Eric Schulte <address@hidden> writes:
>> Thanks for finding the source of this problem.  The preceding character
>> is checked so that inline source blocks can be commented.  E.g., a user
>> may want =src_sh{date}= to appear verbatim.
> =src_sh{date}= won't be expanded by `org-babel-exp-non-block-elements'
> (is there another function executing them?) since the current version
> checks object at point (in this case, it is a verbatim object, not an
> inline-src-block). So, in this case, there's no need for the check.
>> Similarly if the preceding character is a letter e.g.,
>> notsrc_sh{date}, then the source block should not be executed.
> I don't understand why it wouldn't be expanded in that situation. It can
> be useful if results are raw: it becomes a beefed-up macro.
>> Ideally there would be a way to specify that *if* a character exists
>> before the code block it must have some property, or to match the
>> beginning of the element as another regexp option.  I would say we can
>> go ahead and remove the leading portion of the regexp, but as I recall I
>> wrote it in response to legitimate complaints on the mailing list about
>> the overly permissive behavior of inline source blocks, and I do not
>> want for those problems to re-emerge.
> I understand, but it looks like a very drastic solution. It may be worth
> reconsidering it for 8.x branch. If problems re-emerge then, test cases
> will be provided. What do you think about it?
> For 7.9.x, I'll just commit the workaround.

Yea, that sounds reasonable, thanks for taking care of this.  If I find
time I'll dig through the mailing list and see if I can find the exact
reason why that portion of the regexp was added.

I've had the experience before of reverting a piece of code that seemed
superfluous to then have old bugs re-emerge and finally revert my
reversion.  So I now try to err on the side of deference towards
existing code.


> Regards,

Eric Schulte

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]