Hi Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
In fact, what you expect is that putting a tag ":noexport:" on a subtree
would
propagate the option ":eval no-export"[1] to all code blocks beneath it.
That's
>
Eric Schulte writes:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
In fact, what you expect is that putting a tag ":noexport:" on a subtree
would
propagate the option ":eval no-export"[1] to all code blocks beneath it.
"Sebastien Vauban" writes:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>>> In fact, what you expect is that putting a tag ":noexport:" on a subtree
>>> would
>>> propagate the option ":eval no-export"[1] to all code blocks beneath it.
>>> That's
>>> the one which inhi
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> In fact, what you expect is that putting a tag ":noexport:" on a subtree
>> would
>> propagate the option ":eval no-export"[1] to all code blocks beneath it.
>> That's
>> the one which inhibits code block evaluation during export
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> "Sebastien Vauban"
> writes:
>
>> Andreas Leha wrote:
>>> it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
>>> are evaluated. Is this intended?
>
> As far as the new exporter goes (you may want to have a look at
> `org-export-as' functio
Hello,
"Sebastien Vauban"
writes:
> Andreas Leha wrote:
>> it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
>> are evaluated. Is this intended?
>
> I think that, at least, it's not a bug. I don't /think/ it has never been
> specified like that. But I still don't have a cl
Hi Sebastien,
"Sebastien Vauban"
writes:
> Hello Andreas,
>
> Andreas Leha wrote:
>> it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
>> are evaluated. Is this intended?
>
> I think that, at least, it's not a bug. I don't /think/ it has never been
> specified like that. Bu
Hello Andreas,
Andreas Leha wrote:
> it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
> are evaluated. Is this intended?
I think that, at least, it's not a bug. I don't /think/ it has never been
specified like that. But I still don't have a clear view of what is done, in
whi
Hi all,
it seems to me, that #+call lines in subtrees with the :noexport: tag
are evaluated. Is this intended?
In my opinion, these #+calls should not be evaluated.
* Example
Export this subtree with org-export-dispatch. You will have to wait for
more than 1+10 secs...
** To be exported
This
