Re: Include lines in setupfile are not evaluated: bug or feature?

[Jarmo Hurri]

Greetings again.

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

>> Ok. As a programmer I was hoping to mix them, because it would be
>> logical to have _one_ header file that defines all the common things
>> for a set of related files.
>
> Again, there is no overlap between the two keywords. SETUPFILE is what
> you want. INCLUDE is only meaningful during export (and is only
> documented there). I cannot think of a real situation where you would
> need both for the same file.

I have such documents regularly.
1. One type is a handout containing common contents at the beginning
   (included) and settings (setup).
2. The other case is a set of files sharing setup info and code (babel
   blocks, included).

>> Do I understand correctly: the description in the documentation is
>> not correct in the sense that not all contents from SETUPFILE is
>> evaluated as if it were included in the buffer?
>
> I think the document is correct, although I understand it can be
> misleading: it uses the verb "to include", but with a different
> meaning than INCLUDE keyword. It includes in-buffer settings, not full
> contents.
>
>> I am just trying to think about how this limitation, if it exists,
>> should be expressed in documentation. Shall I give it a try?
>
> Sure, but please do not mix SETUPFILE and INCLUDE, which are
> unrelated.

I will give it a try during the Christmas break.

All the best,

Jarmo