From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Modified Babel call execution and property deprecation Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:50:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87k2hk2fea.fsf@saiph.selenimh> References: <87r3bwydno.fsf@saiph.selenimh> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bEyf5-0004RI-Oe for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:51:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bEyeu-0006io-U4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:50:42 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:37734) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bEyeu-0006ho-H4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:50:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Charles C. Berry's message of "Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:43:02 -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" To: "Charles C. Berry" Cc: Org Mode List Hello, "Charles C. Berry" writes: > In looking over ob-lob.el, I noticed that the `org-babel-library-of-babel' > docstring is misleading: > > #+BEGIN_QUOTE > Library of source-code blocks. > This is an association list. Populate the library by adding > files to `org-babel-lob-files'. > #+END_QUOTE > > So is the docstring for `org-babel-lob-files': > > #+BEGIN_QUOTE > Files used to populate the `org-babel-library-of-babel'. > To add files to this list use the `org-babel-lob-ingest' command. > #+END_QUOTE > > Grepping the lisp sources and worg it seems that that variable is > never actually used for anything nor modified by any function. > > So maybe that variable should be removed or made obsolete and the > docstring for `org-babel-library-of-babel' changed to something like This variable has always been a no-op. Since no-one noticed it, I guess we can remove it. I actually did it in a5cf0f6. Thank you. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou