[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Orgmode] Re: Release 7.02

From: Sébastien Vauban
Subject: [Orgmode] Re: Release 7.02
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:36:38 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (windows-nt)

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Sébastien Vauban wrote:
>> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> Due to changes made to lists, it is no longer possible to have a sublist,
>>> some text and then another sublist while still in the same top- level list
>>> item, like in the following situation:
>>>  - Some list
>>>    + A first sublist
>>>    + of two elements
>>>    A text belonging to the top-level list
>>>    + Then another sublist
>>>    + and a second element in it
>>>  - End of main list
>> Basically, it means that this entry for this entry (about Org Babel) from
>> an old file of mine (update this morning) does not publish anymore the same
>> way:
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> * How to view the results
>> - =C-c C-v C-v= (or =C-c C-v v=) -- View the expanded body of a code block.
>> - =C-c C-v C-z= -- Switch to the *session* of the current code block (first,
>>  you need to add =:session= to it).
>>  Use =C-u C-c C-v C-z= to bring up the session with the input variable
>>  pre-loaded.
>>  =C-c C-v z= (=org-babel-switch-to-session-with-code=) is a variant of =C-c
>>  C-v C-z= (=org-babel-switch-to-session=): instead of switching to the
>>  session buffer, it splits the window between:
>>  + the session buffer, and
>>  + a language major-mode edit buffer for the code block in question.
>>  This can be convenient for using language major mode for interacting with
>>  the session buffer.
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>> The last sentence is *not* considered part of the second element of the
>> first list.
>> Although I've seen similar constructs in many, many documents, does anyone
>> know enough rules of style to tell me if this is a wrong way to write
>> things down? Or, does some possibility still exist to support this
>> seamlessly?
> It is not that this would be bad style. In fact I do miss this kind of
> structure as well, and accepting loosing it was the biggest argument against
> Nicolas' change.

Does that mean that we must admit this will stay like that forever, or will
one try to look and see if it's possible to make that extension?

> However, the trade was for much greater stability and consistency of plain
> lists, Nicolas has done some great work here. Another issue was that the
> LaTeX exporter never had any support for these structures, so that was
> inconsistent for a long time.

I know that Bastien told he would fix it when he would have time. So, that did
not seem to be an impossible wish.

Best regards,

Sébastien Vauban

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]