Hello,
"Sebastien Vauban"
writes:
> Can we assume that `:noexport:' and `COMMENT' are complete synonyms, as of
> today
As of today, yes.
> and will stay so in the foreseen future?
I wouldn't bet. `:noexport' is /de facto/ limited to export. `COMMENT'
keyword doesn't have to. Someone may com
Hi Nicolas and Eric,
Eric S Fraga wrote:
> It's a problem only because of the way I use the :noexport: and COMMENT
> tags to exclude parts of a document that are often incomplete or
> partially defined.
Can we assume that `:noexport:' and `COMMENT' are complete synonyms, as of
today, and will sta
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> Eric S Fraga writes:
>
>> There is still a bug in that the exporter should fail more gracefully?
>
> Agreed. This syntax error should be more explicit now. Thanks.
Thanks!
>> The question of structural interpretation remains: should the file be
>> included
Hello,
Eric S Fraga writes:
> There is still a bug in that the exporter should fail more gracefully?
Agreed. This syntax error should be more explicit now. Thanks.
> The question of structural interpretation remains: should the file be
> included if it is found within a not-to-be-exported head
Myles English writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> You have:
>
> #+include: uml.org
>
> I think it should be:
>
> #+include: "uml.org"
Indeed it should be, or at least for the new exporter. Thanks for
pointing this out.
There is still a bug in that the exporter should fail more gracefully?
The question
Hi Eric,
You have:
#+include: uml.org
I think it should be:
#+include: "uml.org"
I have haven't tried it though.
Myles
Eric S Fraga writes:
> Hello,
>
> with an up to date org, I cannot get the attached minimal example to
> export using the new exporter. I have try exporting to latex
Hello,
with an up to date org, I cannot get the attached minimal example to
export using the new exporter. I have try exporting to latex-pdf, in
case that matters. The (line-length truncated) error trace is:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Debugger entered--Lis
