Myles English mylesengl...@gmail.com 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?
Hello,
Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk 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
Nicolas Goaziou n.goaz...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
Eric S Fraga e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk 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:
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 stay
Hello,
Sebastien Vauban
wxhgmqzgwmuf-genee64ty+gs+fvcfc7...@public.gmane.org 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.
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--Lisp
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-pdf,
