Ramesh Nedunchezian <rameshnedunchez...@outlook.com> writes: > While in the lint buffer, I was expecting that M-g M-n, M-g M-p would > take me to the relevant source lines. Unfortunately, this isn't the > case. And the linter report is derived from > `org-lint--report-mode-map' which is derived from > `tabulated-list-mode'. The departure from convention surprised me.
I don't know what convention you're talking about and I don't understand why that would be unfortunate. I think RET will take you to the relevant source lines whereas TAB and C-j will display them. See manual, or minor mode docstring, for details. > And .... the following snippet works fine i.e., The linter finds any > issue with an "unknown" language but complaints if the "unknown" > language happens to be empty. > > #+begin_src zzzzzzzzzzzzz > make packages/<pkgname> > #+end_src > > I wonder why an unknown langauge would be acceptable for export and > not a "empty" language. > Isn't source blocks with no language equivalent to example blocks. I don't think such assumption is written anywhere. If that was the case, we wouldn't need example blocks, would we? A source block without a source language is just a meaningless construct. Forcing a meaning here would just be a sad hack, IMO. Regards,
