Greetings again.
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: >> Ok. As a programmer I was hoping to mix them, because it would be >> logical to have _one_ header file that defines all the common things >> for a set of related files. > > Again, there is no overlap between the two keywords. SETUPFILE is what > you want. INCLUDE is only meaningful during export (and is only > documented there). I cannot think of a real situation where you would > need both for the same file. I have such documents regularly. 1. One type is a handout containing common contents at the beginning (included) and settings (setup). 2. The other case is a set of files sharing setup info and code (babel blocks, included). >> Do I understand correctly: the description in the documentation is >> not correct in the sense that not all contents from SETUPFILE is >> evaluated as if it were included in the buffer? > > I think the document is correct, although I understand it can be > misleading: it uses the verb "to include", but with a different > meaning than INCLUDE keyword. It includes in-buffer settings, not full > contents. > >> I am just trying to think about how this limitation, if it exists, >> should be expressed in documentation. Shall I give it a try? > > Sure, but please do not mix SETUPFILE and INCLUDE, which are > unrelated. I will give it a try during the Christmas break. All the best, Jarmo