Ihor Radchenko 于2024年3月29日周五 03:25写道：
>
> Doerthous writes:
>
> > Can we add a support for whitespace prefix such that the prefix of a
> > noweb-ref replaced by whitespace characters?
> >
> > ...
> > #+name: a-fragment
> > #+begin_src elisp :noweb yes :noweb-prefix whitespace
> > (let (<>)
> >
Doerthous writes:
> Can we add a support for whitespace prefix such that the prefix of a
> noweb-ref replaced by whitespace characters?
>
> ...
> #+name: a-fragment
> #+begin_src elisp :noweb yes :noweb-prefix whitespace
> (let (<>)
> <>)
> #+end_src
>
> using whitespace :noweb-prefix, the
Akash Pal writes:
> I came across this flow of execution while trying to export a ghost
> org-file to pdf, meaning that the file is 'created' through #'find-file but
> not saved. While export the following backtrace is noted:
>
> ```
> Debugger entered--entering a function:
> *
On 3/28/24 08:18, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
Adam Porter writes:
I guess we can make this into a poll... (I have no better ideas on
how to resolve the disagreement)
I think that's unnecessary. Worg isn't a democracy, after all. If you
are vetoing the idea, then let it be vetoed, and let us
I came across this flow of execution while trying to export a ghost
org-file to pdf, meaning that the file is 'created' through #'find-file but
not saved. While export the following backtrace is noted:
```
Debugger entered--entering a function:
*
Hi
For :noweb-prefix of noweb feature, now we have "yes" or "no" option.
Can we add a new "whitespace" option so that we can:
Giving following fragments,
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref varable-bindings
(a 0)
(b 1)
#+end_src
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref do-something
`(,a ,b)
Hi
For :noweb-prefix of noweb feature, now we have "yes" or "no" option.
Can we add a new "whitespace" option so that we can:
Giving following fragments,
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref varable-bindings
(a 0)
(b 1)
#+end_src
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref do-something
`(,a ,b)
Hi
Can we add a support for whitespace prefix such that the prefix of a
noweb-ref replaced by whitespace characters?
Here is a use case,
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref varable-bindings
(a 0)
(b 1)
#+end_src
#+begin_src elisp :noweb-ref do-something
`(,a ,b)
#+end_src
#+name: a-fragment
Adam Porter writes:
>> I guess we can make this into a poll... (I have no better ideas on
>> how to resolve the disagreement)
>
> I think that's unnecessary. Worg isn't a democracy, after all. If you
> are vetoing the idea, then let it be vetoed, and let us move on with the
> rest of the
Adam Porter writes:
>> Actually, what Bastien suggested is slightly different.
>> See the attached tentative patch.
>
> Sure. I've pushed that, adding a "co-authored-by" line for Bastien.
Thanks!
On 3/28/24 07:01, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
Adam Porter writes:
On 3/26/24 09:59, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
I agree. My concern was not about dropping the previous wording.
What about
The assignment process does not always go quickly; occasionally it may
get stuck or overlooked at the FSF. If
On 3/28/24 06:44, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
So I would still suggest that, on Worg, we use my suggested styling
on #+begin_center blocks. This would make them useful and fulfill
their natural purpose.
I think that we have a principal disagreement here. For me,
highlighting #+begin_center blocks
Visuwesh writes:
> In emacs -Q, try evaluating the source block
>
> #+BEGIN_SRC calc :var thetarot=1.3
> 1/thetarot
> #+END_SRC
>
> and witness the following error:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp 1.3)
> nth(2 1.3)
Confirmed.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Remember to cover the basics, that is, what you expected to happen and
what in fact did happen. You don't know how to make a good report? See
https://orgmode.org/manual/Feedback.html#Feedback
Your bug report will be posted to the Org mailing list.
Michael writes:
> Should we perhaps have different variables for preview & Org
> source block evaluation?
Likely yes.
In fact, ob-latex is making use of `org-preview-latex-process-alist'
only in a single cond branch in `org-babel-execute:latex' - when we have
:file foo.png
However, that
Adam Porter writes:
> On 3/26/24 09:59, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>
>> I agree. My concern was not about dropping the previous wording.
>>
>> What about
>>
>> The assignment process does not always go quickly; occasionally it may
>> get stuck or overlooked at the FSF. If there is no response to
Adam Porter writes:
> ...
> So I would still suggest that, on Worg, we use my suggested styling on
> #+begin_center blocks. This would make them useful and fulfill their
> natural purpose.
I think that we have a principal disagreement here. For me, highlighting
#+begin_center blocks is
This is tangent to the original problem I described.
Max Nikulin writes:
> On 25/03/2024 18:18, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> I am wondering whether it is at all possible to use the same syntax and
>> yet pass validation for all the allowed values of `org-html-doctype':
>> "html4-strict",
Nathaniel Nicandro writes:
> Feedback appreciated!
Thanks for the update!
> I've finally implemented a solution to what I've discussed previously,
> inserting zero width spaces as boundary characters after an ANSI
> sequence to act as a separator from the text after the sequence. This
> would
Edgar Lux writes:
> Hi, I had a need for this again (sorry for the necro-bump).
One month is perfectly normal reply time by mailing list standards :)
We just start questioning whether the discussion is active after one month.
> On Feb 26, 2024 at 5:51 PM, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> The
Hi Ihor,
* Ihor Radchenko [2024-03-27; 12:00 GMT]:
> Gregor Zattler writes:
>
>>> I'd like to see the problematic timestamp to understand what might be
>>> going on there.
>>
>>
>> thanks for your instructions, I edited it a bit:
>>
>> "- SxII VPN vxx USB S ()
>>
Christian writes:
> Dear org users,
>
> This is my second paper I am formatting with the new citation framework,
> this time using csl for the first time, since basic does not fit the
> bill anymore.
>
> This paper is discussing and comparing translations to the same text. So
> when I mention
22 matches
Mail list logo
