Re: [O] [lint] imagemagick
Andreas Lehawrites: > I am not sure about the possible values, though. babel header arguments > usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE. Which is, IMO, a mistake. Lisp has already some definition of TRUE and FALSE which is not language-centric. > Examples are :tangle, :comments, etc. So, I have been using > ':imagemagick yes' until now. > > But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected > thing. I looked at the source and every time, :imagemagick is treated as a boolean, so "yes" and "no" are equivalent to t. At least, the declaration seems on par with the source. Regards,
Re: [O] [lint] imagemagick
Hello, Andreas Lehawrites: > I get a spurious linting warning > , > | high Unknown header argument ":imagemagick" > ` > > While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks. Assuming possible values for :imagemagick are nil and t, this is now fixed in master. Thank you. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
[O] [lint] imagemagick
Hi all, I get a spurious linting warning , | high Unknown header argument ":imagemagick" ` While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks. Regards, Andreas
Re: [O] [lint] imagemagick
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziouwrites: > Hello, > > Andreas Leha writes: > >> I get a spurious linting warning >> , >> | high Unknown header argument ":imagemagick" >> ` >> >> While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks. > > Assuming possible values for :imagemagick are nil and t, this is now > fixed in master. > Thanks a lot! I am not sure about the possible values, though. babel header arguments usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE. Examples are :tangle, :comments, etc. So, I have been using ':imagemagick yes' until now. But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected thing. Regards, Andreas
Re: [O] [lint] imagemagick
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziouwrites: > Andreas Leha writes: > >> I am not sure about the possible values, though. babel header arguments >> usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE. > > Which is, IMO, a mistake. Lisp has already some definition of TRUE and > FALSE which is not language-centric. I agree completely. > >> Examples are :tangle, :comments, etc. So, I have been using >> ':imagemagick yes' until now. >> >> But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected >> thing. > > I looked at the source and every time, :imagemagick is treated as > a boolean, so "yes" and "no" are equivalent to t. Exactly. I guess my implicit question was, whether we should aim to make :imagemagick accept 'no' as nil to be consistent with the general org babel conventions. As I get it, you would say: no. (The next question would be whether we live with inconsistency or whether we should switch the other header arguments backward incompatibly use t and nil as well...) > > At least, the declaration seems on par with the source. Yes, thanks! Andreas
Re: [O] [lint] imagemagick
Andreas Lehawrites: > Exactly. I guess my implicit question was, whether we should aim to > make :imagemagick accept 'no' as nil to be consistent with the general > org babel conventions. > > As I get it, you would say: no. Not at all. My main concern was to fix the issue. This is another one. We could accept "no" as nil. Patches welcome. Meanwhile, we could also add a rule to `org-lint' warning about deprecate use of "yes" and "no" and suggest to slowly switch to nil and t, if that's really important. -- Nicolas