One more vote in favor of not removing my own use, I added
Anyway, just an opinion. "<" macros save me tons of time with ox-latex
markup. I like them.
hjh
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
RT.
Hope Org-mode can fix this issue.
[stardiviner] GPG key ID: 47C32433
IRC(freeenode): stardiviner Twitter: @numbchild
Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36 CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433
Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/
On Tuesday, 7 Nov 2017 at 09:42, Lawrence Bottorff wrote:
> Still haven't tracked down the exact steps to reproduce this problem, but
> it happened again recently -- and starting a new emacs from the command
> line solved it, i.e., my usual daemon-run emacs seems to be "crudding up"
> somehow.
Th
Hi,
I am looking for a working configuration for using oz code blocks in org-mode
file. I've installed Mozart2 on macOS 10.12.6 and use org-mode version 9.0.9.
I've put
(org-babel-do-load-languages
'org-babel-load-languages
'((emacs-lisp . t)
(oz . t)))
into my Aquamacs initialization and t
Rasmus writes:
> Rasmus writes:
>
>> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>>
>>> Takaaki Ishikawa writes:
>>>
I also support the idea of keeping ">>> Please give importance to the backward compatibility in this case.
>>>
>>> I explained why I thought it could be removed. I also suggested
>>> solutions
Hi,
I think htmlize.el should be optional for ox-html. Although htmlize.el
is cool, there are still reasons to don't use it, e.g.,
- Colors looks nice in Emacs looks bad in the web browser
- No color at all in batch mode
- I want to use third party solutions such pygmentize and highlight.js
When
Rasmus writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>
>> Takaaki Ishikawa writes:
>>
>>> I also support the idea of keeping ">> Please give importance to the backward compatibility in this case.
>>
>> I explained why I thought it could be removed. I also suggested
>> solutions to get an equivalent feature
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Takaaki Ishikawa writes:
>
>> I also support the idea of keeping "> Please give importance to the backward compatibility in this case.
>
> I explained why I thought it could be removed. I also suggested
> solutions to get an equivalent feature without implementing it in
