On 5/4/11 May 4 -5:36 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On 4.5.2011, at 17:08, Robert Goldman wrote: > >> On 5/4/11 May 4 -2:59 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote: >>> Patch 767 (http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/767/) is now "Accepted". >>> >>> Maintainer comment: Pushed with modifications. Some optimization, and the >>> original patch would have stopped at the first #+index line that was >>> missing the entry... Please verify that it still works >>> >>> This relates to the following submission: >>> >>> http://mid.gmane.org/%3C1303991243-30731-2-git-send-email-rpgoldman%40sift.info%3E >> >> I think there's a minor problem with the patch. AFAICT, it binds the >> local variable 'entry' but does not read it (instead it uses the match >> text directly). > > That is right, that is unnecessary. I removed that, thanks. > >> As an aside, it might be desirable to handle the empty index case that >> you identified. E.g., >> >> (if (> (match-end 1) (match-beginning 1)) >> ...rewrite the index entry... >> ;; else >> emit a warning >> rewrite the index entry as the empty string >> ) > > You mean, instead of ignoring it, there should be an error message > or warning? > > - Carsten
I was suggesting a warning. I don't /believe/ (I'm not in a position to check right now) that the previous code ignored it --- I think it was going to write an empty index --- \index{} --- and I'm not sure whether that would be happy with Latex, or would generate a hard-to-debug error downstream after processing the generated latex. I also don't know if it's easy to report the particular line in the org file that's bad. I suspect not, because of the preprocessing, but I could be wrong. best, R