emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] BUG: example/src blocks and latex export


From: Nick Dokos
Subject: Re: [O] BUG: example/src blocks and latex export
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:03:44 -0400

Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> Nick Dokos <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > * foo
> >
> > Verbiage to begin the paragraph
> > #+begin_src shell
> > get-config.py var section [section ...]
> > #+end_src
> > and verbiage to end the same paragraph.
> >
> > * bar
> >
> > Verbiage to begin the paragraph
> > #+begin_example
> > get-config.py var section [section ...]
> > #+end_example
> > and verbiage to end the same paragraph.
> 
> I tested your patch with the example above and I get this:
> 
> ,----
> | Verbiage to begin the paragraph
> | 
> | \lstset{language=shell}
> | \begin{lstlisting}
> | get-config.py var section [section ...]
> | \end{lstlisting}
> | 
> | and verbiage to end the same paragraph.
> | \section*{bar}
> | \label{sec-2}
> | 
> | 
> | Verbiage to begin the paragraph
> | 
> | \begin{verbatim}
> | get-config.py var section [section ...]
> | \end{verbatim}
> | and verbiage to end the same paragraph.
> `----
> 
> It looks better than the current export (less white lines) but still
> has a problem with the first "and verbiage..." being indented.
> 
> Is this intentional?  Or do you want the same behavior for #+begin_src
> and #+begin_example?
> 

Not intentional. But I have org-export-latex-listings set to nil, so in
my case, the src block gets turned into a verbatim environment, not into
a listings environment, and there is no empty line there.  Let me play
around a bit with org-export-latex-listings and see.

I guess the change in org-latex-verbatim-wrap takes care of my case,
but there is another (gratuitous?) newline inserted after listings.

> In overall, I think number of white lines should be the same in the
> Org source file and in the LaTeX exported file, so a patch here is
> welcome.  But maybe I misunderstood something in Eric's reply.

I tend to agree, but I can also understand Eric's wish for visual
separation.  However, as I pointed out in my earlier reply to him, I
think that's a separate problem, not addressed (or affected) by this
patch.

Thanks for testing,
Nick




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]