From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: annoying behavior in  orgtbl-mode
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:26:27 -0500
Message-ID: <87shn3y2q4.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <87y3wvg7b5.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47108)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <geo-emacs-orgmode@m.gmane.org>) id 1chIhg-0002Op-3b
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:26:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <geo-emacs-orgmode@m.gmane.org>) id 1chIhc-0003Pk-RC
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:26:44 -0500
Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=38340 helo=blaine.gmane.org)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <geo-emacs-orgmode@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1chIhc-0003PO-LU
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:26:40 -0500
Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <geo-emacs-orgmode@m.gmane.org>) id 1chIhR-0001qS-8P
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:26:29 +0100
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

> Hi
>
> Please consider the following table in an org buffer
>
>
>
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----|
> | Name   | E1a | E1b | E1c | E1d | E2a | E2b | E2c | Res |
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----|
> | Brauer |  10 |  20 |  10 |  10 |  30 |  10 |  10 | 100 |
> | Smith  |  10 | 10  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
>
> #+TBLFM: $9=$2+$3+$4+$5+$6+$7+$8
>
> C-u C-u C-c C-c leads to 
>
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----|
> | Name   | E1a | E1b | E1c | E1d | E2a | E2b | E2c | Res |
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----|
> | Brauer |  10 |  20 |  10 |  10 |  30 |  10 |  10 | 100 |
> | Smith  |  10 |  10 |     |     |     |     |     |  20 |
>
> #+TBLFM: $9=$2+$3+$4+$5+$6+$7+$8
>
> Which is ok. When I do the same in a latex buffer using orgtbl-mode I
> obtain
>
> \documentclass[12pt]{article}
> \usepackage{comment}
> \begin{document}
>
> % BEGIN RECEIVE ORGTBL test
> \begin{tabular}{l|r|rrrrrrr}
> \hline
> Name & E1a & E1b & E1c & E1d & E2a & E2b & E2c & E1a + E1b + E1c + E1d + E2a + E2b + E2c\\ \hline
> \hline
> Brauer & 10 & 20 & 10 & 10 & 30 & 10 & 10 & 100\\ \hline
> Smith & 10 & 10 &  &  &  &  &  & 20\\ \hline
> \end{tabular}
> % END RECEIVE ORGTBL test
> \begin{comment}
> #+ORGTBL: SEND test orgtbl-to-latex  :lend "\\\\ \\hline" :environment tabular
> | /      |  <> |     |     |     |     |     |     |                                         |
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------------------------|
> | Name   | E1a | E1b | E1c | E1d | E2a | E2b | E2c | E1a + E1b + E1c + E1d + E2a + E2b + E2c |
> |--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------------------------|
> | Brauer |  10 |  20 |  10 |  10 |  30 |  10 |  10 |                                     100 |
> | Smith  |  10 |  10 |     |     |     |     |     |                                      20 |
> #+TBLFM: $9=$2+$3+$4+$5+$6+$7+$8
> \end{comment}
>
> \end{document}
>
>
> Which is annoying. Is this a *bug*?
>

I'm missing something: what exactly is annoying?

-- 
Nick