From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id 8K1QDFxxZGeIvwAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 19:17:48 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 8K1QDFxxZGeIvwAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 20:17:48 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b="WA2fm0c/"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1734635868; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=9We/4W/gZbxl1W08Y+AiFzZpeigVcx3fmRvUvxy60LY=; b=nk9Cql+wxz4Ez2JG2F31nMKWqr2tZ3x1mwIYAaGP7SST7LyYDNi9WGbl9qQV6hXPRJYlNU u4th6+93kz0HfHZgyB80xXnCXBqIC6CE7HxA8ZLlC2yhRaVdoPuBwSRvBQS0OIdktUC3K5 wIQMAwQb3QTUXTA79KmyOnZe0ciEOY/bLW7weKQAUObEgKcxg1s+xBc3zbq9AOuVa424Xz g9RYUF6Ew/cDV7idyvalpGEpe5tfBintQJcX+eOf0HQCyrLz8yGqrHt8XBKGvfF3b8zkRQ l3eQr11eJUAAwH7LC8suLx64YYq60SXH6B3b2kCoq2whKHvBRYU9amZ3+QYl+w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b="WA2fm0c/"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1734635868; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=KcDhZCVA33t17tllP0JAiVOz/+XFtn7NWQiaGMceMKgJUzFwwBu8/sOW/FG5TgEpTT9Jjz bVrv4X3nX/gca6qN1J+n0SChSeyAFnqan1T2FyGopMQmgAMQLWuflHhwodHJmy+fSTeUvU cHWXnJ3Tlbfy10BX2Ey4lEO8bKL8aRz7B9Yi5QYIYUleJGdX/76nH2a+FbB8aHAdyzN7Qt 6NZxnSb4R+ILyELd8Yau6Xj3/mPxPx8RpfHiFp2nYFtnXA4d/C06j53nzwYtjRcweDbzrw BhbIYGKDTWI4ZzyMb3zHOcje+KbS1dkLOEhvF/TyxU9vRZJc6HWXTQMr8uWngQ== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3F41A347 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 20:17:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOM0x-0005nQ-Cw; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:16:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOM0X-0005lY-U4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:16:30 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOM0T-0000g5-T6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:16:25 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F2E2240101 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 20:16:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1734635779; bh=yEF9ygw4mqnUc3Pdl/UOc1TWvFWNoCvKQYOz3d5nY0o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: From; b=WA2fm0c/Er0hpthtmD/Ck83SJTg1hel4rkRvescqiv9BbRA5sZhl2gdPtUYK5LEq/ L/TSUxWMewidYSCUnojZBWTS5aRYM8ARabfZpiLOqXn+vU/MQ2wPL6JvFH7Ynk9VrP oYT1ekn2tnAYx1qC79C15fM5oH8AYIWK2D6XUaOWvLLs5xvkJp9kwWkzP8Dsia1FS8 V1+yzVA46F6Sml67eh6TIohEmE6lLEzlBb7Gsvh5bS0Wt2hDh23RPJYhsQE38jLjq3 QVuvDy/4rcmggkAEpAzfokcqnySHNmceGotmC7Hy61g8w3mVeumS+6VcCK8yqW3MI6 JGNBDI0f3WCBg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4YDgJL20Twz6tsf; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 20:16:17 +0100 (CET) From: Ihor Radchenko To: Derek Chen-Becker Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: [BUG] Cannot tangle src block in capture buffer [9.7.6] In-Reply-To: References: <2dijBN1CGUPtmZzcNXZAe54y8u0pC8V_DYIBCL4rSR1eh2s8TFJGW5V3q7pkiCRFtEHYXy66CU7F6kK3NN_VAX-R_RbAXptG0b5vOlUQsi8=@protonmail.com> <87y15bcbi1.fsf@localhost> <877c7zede2.fsf@localhost> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 19:17:53 +0000 Message-ID: <874j2z7a8u.fsf@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -9.19 X-Spam-Score: -9.19 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 0A3F41A347 X-TUID: MQ+1xp31HbsJ Derek Chen-Becker writes: > OK, I can start working on the new function and plumb it in. I agree that > "org-base-buffer-file-name" would be better. Thanks in advance! Do note that we still cannot blindly replace every instance of buffer-file-name with the new function. At least a cursory case-by-case check is necessary to make sure that logic will not be broken. > ... For the case you mentioned > about an Org buffer not yet associated with a file, that seems like a > complication that we can't solve at this level. Do we leave that as a known > issue, or are there straightforward ways to maybe deal with that? It feels > like that may be case-by-case. It will certainly be case-by-case. Sometimes, the code can only be evaluated in a file buffer. Ever. Sometimes not. This one is rather theoretical. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at