Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
On 2015-04-29 17:05, Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> Alan Schmitt writes:
>
>> Does this mean that #+INCLUDE is now a superset of #+SETUPFILE (I've had
>> some cases where I needed to do both)?
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> INCLUDE are expanded only during export. SETUPFILE are read whenever you
> open a document or use C-c C-c on a keyword.
I see. So is this a correct characterization:
SETUPFILΕ behaves as if all the "#+" lines of the pointed file were in
the current file.
INCLUDE behaves as if all the lines of the pointed file were in the
current file during export.
Hence if a file only has "#+" lines, as in:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
#+author: Programmation Fonctionnelle
#+date: Année 2014-2015
#+options: toc:nil d:RESULTS
#+property: header-args:ocaml :tangle yes
#+LaTeX_CLASS_OPTIONS: [a4paper]
#+latex_header: \usepackage{color}
#+latex_header: \usepackage{minted}
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
then I only need to SETUPFILE it (but I cannot just INCLUDE it because
of the tangle property that needs to be set when the file is opened).
Thanks,
Alan
--
OpenPGP Key ID : 040D0A3B4ED2E5C7
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
Hello, Alan Schmitt writes: > Does this mean that #+INCLUDE is now a superset of #+SETUPFILE (I've had > some cases where I needed to do both)? No, it isn't. INCLUDE are expanded only during export. SETUPFILE are read whenever you open a document or use C-c C-c on a keyword. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
On 2015-04-27 20:46, Nicolas Goaziou writes: >>> Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding >>> INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious) >>> efficiency reasons. >> >> If you don't remember, may be it would be possible to try it out? >> Would love it and as a feature it looks natural for an included file! > > I agree. I added this in 2965f8fb0c048a20b52ba90627e7cca6fe706c93. Thank > you. Does this mean that #+INCLUDE is now a superset of #+SETUPFILE (I've had some cases where I needed to do both)? Thanks, Alan -- OpenPGP Key ID : 040D0A3B4ED2E5C7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
> > >> Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding > >> INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious) > >> efficiency reasons. > > > > If you don't remember, may be it would be possible to try it out? > > Would love it and as a feature it looks natural for an included > > file! > > I agree. I added this in 2965f8fb0c048a20b52ba90627e7cca6fe706c93. > Thank you. > Fantastic! Works like expected now! Detlef
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
Detlef Steuer writes: > The real file2.org is somewhat big and would be scanned completely, > wouldn't it? Only special keywords are parsed. The advantage of SETUPFILE is that it works even outside of export. >> Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding >> INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious) >> efficiency reasons. > > If you don't remember, may be it would be possible to try it out? > Would love it and as a feature it looks natural for an included file! I agree. I added this in 2965f8fb0c048a20b52ba90627e7cca6fe706c93. Thank you. Regards,
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
> Hello, > > Detlef Steuer writes: > > > I have two files: > > > > file1.org: > > > > #+LINK: HOME http://example.de > > > > * My Homepage You can find my homepage [[HOME][here]] > > > > #+INCLUDE: file2.org > > > > > > file2.org > > #+LINK: HOME2 http://other.example.de > > > > * My other page > > You can find my other page [[HOME2][here]] > > > > > > I can export file2.org to html as expected. > > > > I can´t export file1.org to html with the included file2.org. > > Only if I move the #+LINK line from file2 to file1 the export > > works as expected. > > > > In my setting file2.org must export standalone, so moving the LINKs > > to file1 is no option. An ugly workaround would be to include the > > abbreviation for HOME2 in both files. Ugly. > > > > Is there a woraround/setting to have local #+LINK directives > > working in included files? > > You can extract out #+LINK: keywords in a file, e.g. "setup.org" and > use #+SETUPFILE: ... in both "file1.org" and "file2.org". OK, but still this is kind of ugly, because the LINKs really are file specific for ,- in the long run -, multiple files. > > You can also use > > #+SETUPFILE: file2.org > > in "file1.org". > The real file2.org is somewhat big and would be scanned completely, wouldn't it? > Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding > INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious) > efficiency reasons. > If you don't remember, may be it would be possible to try it out? Would love it and as a feature it looks natural for an included file! Thank you for the hints! Regards Detlef > > Regards, >
Re: [O] #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?
Hello, Detlef Steuer writes: > I have two files: > > file1.org: > > #+LINK: HOME http://example.de > > * My Homepage You can find my homepage [[HOME][here]] > > #+INCLUDE: file2.org > > > file2.org > #+LINK: HOME2 http://other.example.de > > * My other page > You can find my other page [[HOME2][here]] > > > I can export file2.org to html as expected. > > I can´t export file1.org to html with the included file2.org. > Only if I move the #+LINK line from file2 to file1 the export > works as expected. > > In my setting file2.org must export standalone, so moving the LINKs to > file1 is no option. An ugly workaround would be to include the > abbreviation for HOME2 in both files. Ugly. > > Is there a woraround/setting to have local #+LINK directives working in > included files? You can extract out #+LINK: keywords in a file, e.g. "setup.org" and use #+SETUPFILE: ... in both "file1.org" and "file2.org". You can also use #+SETUPFILE: file2.org in "file1.org". Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious) efficiency reasons. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
