On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote:
Carsten Dominik writes:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Matt Lundin wrote:
Bernt Hansen writes:
"Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
Can you use the #+BIND: keyword to set arbitrary variables and
achieve
the same result?
If I understand it corr
Carsten Dominik writes:
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Matt Lundin wrote:
>
>> Bernt Hansen writes:
>>
>>> "Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
>>>
>>> Can you use the #+BIND: keyword to set arbitrary variables and
>>> achieve
>>> the same result?
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, #+BIND only works for
2009/10/22 Carsten Dominik :
>
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Matt Lundin wrote:
>
>> Bernt Hansen writes:
>>
>>> "Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
>>>
Expand the #+ in-org file configuration possibilities with
a #+CONFIG or similar keyword.
The idea being to abstract more configurat
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Matt Lundin wrote:
Bernt Hansen writes:
"Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
Expand the #+ in-org file configuration possibilities with
a #+CONFIG or similar keyword.
The idea being to abstract more configuration into actual org files,
and let extensions have an easy w
Bernt Hansen writes:
> "Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
>
>> Expand the #+ in-org file configuration possibilities with
>> a #+CONFIG or similar keyword.
>>
>> The idea being to abstract more configuration into actual org files,
>> and let extensions have an easy way to use #+KEYWORD configuration. I
"Tim O'Callaghan" writes:
> Simply,
>
> Expand the #+ in-org file configuration possibilities with
> a #+CONFIG or similar keyword.
>
> The idea being to abstract more configuration into actual org files,
> and let extensions have an easy way to use #+KEYWORD configuration. I
> expect it could a
