Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hello, Rasmus writes: > That sounds awesome, though I haven't had time to test it yet. Patch pushed to master, along with documentation and tests. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Here's another take on this, which is quite different from the original > draft mode. Now, behaviour on broken links is controlled with > `org-export-with-broken-links' or its OPTIONS counterpart > "broken-links". > > It is possible to either

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Rasmus writes: > While I agree that options such as 't:·', '^:·', 'h:·' are bad, I think > 'barf:·' is nice. It's short and precise, much like 'num:·'. > > Something like 'barf-on-invalid-link' is very easy to mistype or forget. > And yes, I mostly type options by hand. Here's

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Nick Dokos writes: > Eric S Fraga writes: > >> On Thursday, 8 Oct 2015 at 19:00, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> I think I will go with the straight to the point >>> `org-export-barf-on-invalid-link' variable. >>> >>> However, not sure about the

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hi, >> Can this just be a variable set by BIND or publish? > > It could. If we keep throwing errors on unknown macros, I think we can > even have an OPTIONS item. I would be happier with this, I think. >> The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who >> maintain

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Thomas S. Dye writes: > Rasmus writes: > The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who maintain broken-but-soon-to-be-fixed documents... It does not seem to warrant prime real estate in the exporter IMO. Further, I don't think

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Thomas S. Dye writes: The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who maintain broken-but-soon-to-be-fixed documents... It does not seem to warrant prime real estate in the exporter IMO. Further, I don't think 'draft' is the correct word

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Rasmus writes: >>> The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who >>> maintain broken-but-soon-to-be-fixed documents... It does not seem to >>> warrant prime real estate in the exporter IMO. Further, I don't think >>> 'draft' is the correct word for this,

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Eric S Fraga writes: > On Thursday, 8 Oct 2015 at 19:00, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > [...] > >> I think I will go with the straight to the point >> `org-export-barf-on-invalid-link' variable. >> >> However, not sure about the OPTIONS item. >> >> #+OPTIONS: ???:t > >

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Thomas S. Dye writes: > Rasmus writes: > The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who maintain broken-but-soon-to-be-fixed documents... It does not seem to warrant prime real estate in the exporter IMO. Further, I don't think

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

On Thursday, 8 Oct 2015 at 19:00, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: [...] > I think I will go with the straight to the point > `org-export-barf-on-invalid-link' variable. > > However, not sure about the OPTIONS item. > > #+OPTIONS: ???:t #+options: barf:t ;-) More seriously, I'm a big fan of longer

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hello, Rasmus writes: > Can this just be a variable set by BIND or publish? It could. If we keep throwing errors on unknown macros, I think we can even have an OPTIONS item. > The interest of such functionality seems to be limited to people who > maintain

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hello, Aaron Ecay writes: > This is a very good point. OTOH, if backwards compatibility is going to > be broken, wouldn’t it be better to move to a keyword argument system? I'd like to avoid defun* as much as possible, because it may be harder to read. This is also the

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hi Nicolas, This looks like a useful addition. 2015ko irailak 27an, "Charles C. Berry"-ek idatzi zuen: > > On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >>> The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft >>> mode,

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft > mode, invalid macros and links do not throw an error. It can be toggled > with `org-export-as-draft' variable, or using C-d in export dispatch. > > It introduces a backward

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Nicolas Goaziou writes: The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft mode, invalid macros and links do not throw an error. It can be toggled with `org-export-as-draft' variable, or using C-d in

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

On 2015-09-27, at 20:39, Rasmus wrote: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft >> mode, invalid macros and links do not throw an error. It can be toggled >> with `org-export-as-draft' variable,

Re: [O] [RFC] Draft mode

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft > mode, invalid macros and links do not throw an error. It can be toggled > with `org-export-as-draft' variable, or using C-d in export dispatch. Can this just be a variable

[O] [RFC] Draft mode

Hello, The following patch implements a draft mode for export. When in draft mode, invalid macros and links do not throw an error. It can be toggled with `org-export-as-draft' variable, or using C-d in export dispatch. It introduces a backward incompatible change since it modifies signature from