From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Capture template and elisp expression Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:58:55 +0100 Message-ID: <5DF061FC-7815-4952-964A-973928399A12@gmail.com> References: <4D25B0BE.3040408@gmail.com> <23766.1294352789@gamaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> <87mxnc6hnf.fsf@gmail.com> <87ipy069os.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36656 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pbd4C-0006a7-5F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:59:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pbd47-00023k-5r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:59:04 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:63358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pbd47-00023b-0X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:58:59 -0500 Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so8921824ewy.0 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:58:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87ipy069os.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n_N=C4=9Bmec?= Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode , Rainer M Krug On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec wrote: > Carsten Dominik writes: > >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:08 PM, =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec wrote: >>> Why aren't the %() expressions simply evaluated in the original =20 >>> buffer >>> (if available)? That would solve these issues in a general way. It =20= >>> seems >>> to me that there is no advantage to evaluating the expressions in =20= >>> the >>> temporary capture buffer, but I'm not familiar with the code so I =20= >>> might >>> be missing something. Is there a reason for that? >> >> The sexp can be used to insert stuff into the template, so I think it >> is correct to evaluate it in the template buffer. > > I don't understand this argument. Of course the _result_ of the > evaluation is inserted into the template, but why is it useful to > evaluate the expression itself in the context of the template =20 > buffer? Is > it likely that one would be interested in some information only > available in the template buffer? To me it seems that the much more > likely case is the one of Rainer -- i.e. the need to access variable > bindings from the original buffer (buffer name, mode, other local > variables etc.). Such a function is allowed to do anything. It might search around in the template, change things, whatever. So I don't think it should be evaluated in a different buffer. - Carsten > > =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n