From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Properly handle keyword + COMMENT keyword Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87pplbjlsl.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87txanjn0i.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57724) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSCyW-0006bu-Ko for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:04:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSCyO-00068B-6n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:04:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]:56379) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSCyN-000670-Ut for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:04:00 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r20so2870283wiv.9 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Samuel Wales's message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:48:39 -0700") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Samuel Wales Cc: Org Mode List Hello, Samuel Wales writes: > does this preserve todo keyword font locking This is one goal of the patch. > and sorting? IIRC, TODO-based sorting refers to `org-todo-keywords-1', which doesn't include "COMMENT", so I don't think this changes sorting (i.e., sorting ignores COMMENT keywords). > does archive work the same way? I didn't touch to archive tag (but there's some work to do here to, as a first step, `org-in-archived-heading-p' would be nice). Note that ARCHIVE is a tag, though. > i presume it is a coincidence that this message comes after mine which > mentioned font locking and sorting No it isn't. Your message recalled me this needed to be fixed. > as the fix to that message is to not evaluate or export call lines > that are not supposed to be exported. i would not find this change to > be a suitable workaround for that. I do not want to provide a workaround for what I do not consider to be a bug. Export and Babel are two different parts of Org that happen to have a non-empty intersection. "No Export" doesn't have to mean "No Babel" (unless you use a COMMENT keyword, that is). Anyway that's another topic. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou