Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> writes: >> Sorry for being unclear here. I wanted to propose different >> behaviour for TAGs (lets say :noexport:) and the COMMENT keyword. >> I am perfectly fine with :noexport: only prohibiting export but >> still allowing evaluation. >> >> But I propose that COMMENT be more treated like a comment, so more >> like a shorthand for commenting out that subtree using '# '. >> That way, evaluation would be disabled. >> >> I see two benefits: >> 1. It serves the use-case where one wants a subtree to be not >> exported and not evaluated. >> 2. It more resembles Orgs idea of comments. >> >> And since the other use case (no export but still evaluation) is >> still very well supported via :noexport: there would be not too >> much loss. >> >> (IIRC, the COMMENT keyword was close to removal from Orgs syntax >> recently. So, why not add some real additional functionality to >> it?) >> >> WDYT? >> > > This sounds like a good compromise to me. As you say, this should > easily and visually support both use cases and is intuitive. I've not > touched the export machinery myself, so I'll leave the implementation to > Nicolas but I definitely support this approach. > > Best, >
COMMENT is a good proposal. However, for someone new to org-mode, it is difficult to tell the subtle difference between COMMENT and :noexport:. IMO, it is more intuitive that :noexport: prohibits *both* export and evaluation, and if some code in a :noexport: subtree is to be evaluated, then it should be named and called in some other place.
