A little while back I submitted a patch to add org-babel integration for haxe and mentioned that the same could be done for java to expand the features of the java integration. There was no response which I took to mean no interest in haxe or java, so I didn't think submitting a patch for java would be fruitful. Then I thought I could just add them to the contrib directory but was mistaken since that goes through the same ML patch workflow.
Since you recommend it, I will try submitting a patch for java. I still want to share the haxe integration. What is the best way to do that? -Ian On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:55 AM Jarmo Hurri <jarmo.hu...@iki.fi> wrote: > > >> ian martins <ia...@jhu.edu> writes: > >> > >> Would it be possible for us to fix the current version without > >> introducing a new one? Can you identify the parts of your code that fix > >> the issue? > >> > > The existing code creates the java program and runs it correctly, but > > it uses `org-babel-import-elisp-from-file' to interpret the results, > > and that sees the bracket and tries to make the response into a list, > > and errors when it can't. I don't see a quick fix for it. If you allow > > unbalanced brackets but that would be a change in ob-core and would > > probably cause unwanted results in other places. If you don't try to > > convert the output into a list, you can't present java results as > > lists or tables. Really the problem is that ob-java doesn't support > > functional mode, so it tries to guess if scripting mode output should > > be a table or list. The version I wrote supports functional and > > scripting modes and doesn't use `org-babel-import-elisp-from-file'. > > Ok. > > >> I am already a contributor, so if you can post your solution here I > >> can create a patch and give you the credit. > >> > > I would really appreciate that if you are willing, but it's a > > significant change (code is 400 lines, 600 lines of tests and test > > data) and there might be iterations so you might be signing up for > > more than you realize. > > Fair enough. > > 1. Have you considered writing a patch yourself? > > 2. If not, I think you lose nothing by posting your code here and > patiently waiting if I can create something out of it. > > All the best, > > Jarmo > > >
