Hi Bastien,
Bastien wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not out of the blue yet... I still can't understand why:
>>
>> - you were unable to reproduce it?
>> What's the difference between you and me? ;-)
>> I mean why does Org behave differently between us?
>>
>> - nobody else seemed hit by this?
>> I'm surprised by the absence of reactions while HTML export was completely
>> failing for a couple of days. Once again, why only me?
>>
>> - this wasn't trapped by the ERT test suite?
>> There are a lot of HTML exports done in the tests. Why did they succeed?
>>
>> Have you hints on this?
>
> I guess that's because not everybody uses org-special-blocks.el as a
> module.
By "using org-special-blocks.el as a module", if you mean "having a line such
as":
(add-to-list 'org-modules 'org-special-blocks)
I did not have one either.
I just had:
(require 'org-special-blocks)
But, IIUC, that's more or less equivalent:
- being in `org-modules' means that the package will be required[1] many times
before trying to do different operations (such as inserting a link, etc.),
and that there is a protection mechanism in case the package can't be loaded
- being explicitly required in my .emacs does only try to load it once.
Apart from that, I don't see differences.
> The ERT suite doesn't make any test against this.
Well against exporting HTML. But I did not realize that I was more or less the
only one in the world ;-) to load `org-special-blocks'[2] while exporting to
HTML.
This must explain that. Case is closed.
Best regards,
Seb
Footnotes:
[1] Though, really only loaded once.
[2] And I must admit I maybe have used it once or twice, not more... Though, I
still find it an interesting feature.
--
Sebastien Vauban
