[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:26:55 +0200 |
Hello,
Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:
> I have a hunch that this is backwards. It seems like the convention
> has been to allow arbitrary special blocks in org files. Sticking to
> what I know best, these create arbitrarily-named environments in Latex.
> Export blocks seem like the special case (e.g. the number of types is
> constrained by the available export modules), and so they should have
> to bear special marking.
Historically (i.e. pre-8.0), so-called export blocks were a core
feature, whereas special blocks were defined in an optional library
(IIRC "org-special-blocks.el"). That explains why my proposal was to
optionally activate special blocks and not the other way round.
We can instead use
#+begin_latex :raw t
...
#+end_latex
to optionally activate an export block instead of a special block.
I don't mind either way.
> What if you used the convention that all export blocks had the form
> #+begin_export_latex, #+begin_export_html, etc.? This should be
> unambiguous to parse. (It’s possible to bikeshed about the name, of
> course: perhaps #+begin_literal_latex etc.)
One drawback, however, is that is prevents any special block name from
starting with "export" (or any post-bikeshedding name that could be
issued).
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou