Re: [O] Comments break lists when exporting to TeX

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Daniel Schoepe <address@hidden> writes:

> * Test
>   - This will not indent the code properly as a part of the list element
> #+INCLUDE foo.c src c
>   - This will print "#+INCLUDE .." literally:
>     #+INCLUDE foo.c src c
>   - This works as expected:
>   #+BEGIN_SRC c
>   <contents of foo.c>
>   #+END_SRC

This should be "#+INCLUDE: "foo.c" src c", not "#+INCLUDE foo.c src c"

> Of course I could fall back to something like \lstlistinginput, but that
> works only for TeX-export and hence defeats the whole point of
> result-format-agnostic directives such as #+INCLUDE (at least when it's
> used for source files).
>
>> I do not. Export is consistent with in-buffer behaviour. You have
>> created two lists here, not one, and it has nothing to do with export.
>
> I find it odd for a comment to have such an effect on the "semantics"
> of the document. My intuition about comments (that aren't special
> directives) is that they have no effect on the final result (the PDF
> in this case, or the binary in the case of compilable source code).

Note that INCLUDE keyword isn't a comment. Also, again, comments have no
effect on the final result: they are consistent with what happens within
buffer.

[...]

> as long I can get #+INCLUDE to work in list elements. (But it would be a
> nice, general rule that would allow #+INCLUDE to work as "expected".
> Another alternative would be to make all such directives also work when
> they're not at column 0).

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
- This will print "#+INCLUDE .." literally:
  #+INCLUDE: "foo.c" src c
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

This works as expected in the new exporter.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou