Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > Hi Aaron, > > Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> writes: > >> How does this sound as an algorithm: >> 1. if :file is present, behave exactly as we do now >> 2. if :file is absent but :file-ext and a #+name is present, generate a >> :file parameter from :output-dir, the #+name, and :file-ext. > > I suggest this one: > > 1. if :file is present, behave exactly as we do now > > 2. if :file-ext is present: > > - if #+name is present, generate a :file parameter > from :output-dir, #+name and :file-ext > > - otherwise, generate the :file parameter from > :output-dir, the headline or the title or the > current file name and :file-ext > > Just falling back on something sensible when :file is absent > and :file-ext is specified. >
FWIW I'm in full agreement here, see my other email for one sensible alternative. (Sorry to split up my reply, the hazards of an asynch/batch email pull/read/write/push setup.) > >> Open questions: >> 1. should :file-ext without a #+name be a no-op, or an error? > > See above. > >> 2. should :output-dir apply to the :file case as well? > > To me yes. > > In overall I think would be good, but I'd like Eric and other > babelist around here to have a look before we commit this. > So perhaps another round of patch testing will be good. > I agree here. Thanks again, > > Thanks! -- Eric Schulte https://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte PGP: 0x614CA05D
