The xiki video is interesting, and I immediately thought of babel. However, babel sh-mode doesn't have support for execution yet. Even if it did, it wouldn't be a really good alternative, due to babel's verbosity.
One idea is to have a babel subtree (or buffer) that is keyed to a specific language, so that everything under it is assumed to be an executable statement. Something like: * Project A ** Shell :PROPERTIES: :BABEL-TYPE: sh :END: ls - file1 - file2 - file3 run_server ouput-buffer ** Next thing Where the files and output-buffer are linked. The interaction within the BABEL-TYPE heading would be similar to the *scratch* buffer, just execute and it gives you the result immediately below. Except the result should work be org-output, and linked when appropriate. Babel would be handling this, but it wouldn't need the boilerplate for each command, or each output. The idea to use [[shell:ls]] and things like that is also useful, but right now the output goes to a different buffer, and is not otherwise tied in with org-mode. This is why I think babel might be a better fit for this type of functionality. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Bastien <b...@altern.org> wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celose...@gmail.com> writes: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUR_eUVcABg&feature=youtu.be >> >> I'm wondering it something like that could be done with emacs (and >> possibly integrating orgmode to add the outlining features)? > > * [[shell:ls -l]] > > * shell:pwd > > ... etc etc. > > I think pretty all the features described here are already available > with some elisp. > > The basic idea is that the command prompt and the results are of the > same kind: text you can edit, and that can produce an output... that you > can further reuse as a command. Which is the core idea of Org. > > If there is any specific feature displayed in the video that seems > useful for Org, let us know. > > My 2 cents, > > -- > Bastien >