Hi Tim and Troy,

Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes:

> I came across this inconsistency a while back. I think the problem is
> that you should *not* be able to use elisp as a language specifier in
> source blocks.
> All other language specifiers comply to the pattern of source block
> languages being the language major mode name without the '-mode', but
> there is no elisp-mode.
> The problem now is that removing support for 'elisp' would break too
> much.

What I suggest for this particular issue is this: first be liberal
while staying consistent (thus allowing "elisp" as Troy suggest),
then be strict when a major release is issued (thus removing aliases
that are problematic, not just "elisp" but others.)

WDYT?  Troy, would you be able to prepare a patch for this?



Reply via email to